Within Mary Shelley’s classic Frankenstein lie a wide range of messages intended to bring the reader a deeper understanding of the nature of man and what is around him. These ideas are revealed through the main character, Victor Frankenstein, a man willing to do anything to attain knowledge for the sake of power. In this way, in regards to the first portion of the story narrated by Frankenstein himself, it is clear that Shelley establishes Frankenstein’s story on one primary theme: the idea of internal conflict, man versus self. Throughout Frankenstein’s narration of his tale in search of knowledge and power, it seems as if he is constantly facing a dilemma (generally one of morality) that fully consumes him. Internally, he questions the path he takes to achieve his goals, yet, while in the process, he never fully turns away from this path. Frankenstein expresses this while he discusses the creation of his monster, stating that “I thought that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter … I might renew life where death had devoted the body to corruption. These thoughts supported my spirits.” In this statement, Frankenstein makes the implication that he battled with the morality of his actions, but essentially, he rationalizes, in the end, that the ends really do justify the means. He later states that, at one point, he discontinues his studies for a brief period of time, but later resumes them as his ambition reanimates him. This conflict, which lies at the forefront of the story, is one in which Frankenstein attempts to overcome his own selfish desires -- his own nature -- in order to veer away from a path of sin and guilt. He obviously fails to do so, as he continues to pursue knowledge, merely for the sake of power. It is clear that at this moment in his narration, the conflict within himself becomes one of rationalization, the primary factor in his reanimation; this is what leads to his demise. In addition to the rationalization component of this man versus self idea, Frankenstein does not control his passions; his passions control him. As has been mentioned, Frankenstein, while on his “path to glory,” is ambitious and pursues power with no aim of stopping for anything or anyone. He studies without speaking to his family for years when they face a time of grief. He is so consumed in attaining his goals that he isolates himself from those who love him the most, and who may redirect his passions towards what is good, true, and beautiful. This internal aspect of Frankenstein, his lack of self-restraint, further leads him to become a slave to his passions. Clearly, this vulnerability of self is what leads Frankenstein to his downfall. While some might argue that Frankenstein is primarily a story about man versus nature or man versus society, it seems that Frankenstein himself, as well as the character of the parallel story, Robert Walton, would not say the same. Neither Frankenstein nor Walton ever seem to be concerned about society’s imposed standards and thoughts on life and the North Pole, respectively, so in this way, they do not seemed to be concerned with what they will face along the way, the nature or the gravity of their actions. Instead, each is concerned for themselves only and their deepest desires. Walton, in a letter to his sister Margaret writes, “my father’s dying injunction had forbidden my uncle to allow me to embark in a seafaring life,” and later writes that, now that he can travel, he prefers “glory to every enticement that wealth placed in my path.” This mirrors Frankenstein’s thirst for knowledge, desire for self-gain, and willingness to give up everything for glory, a clear display of the fact that Shelley’s story is one revolving around one theme: man versus man’s inner self.
I definitely agree with you on the fact that it was a man versus self story, and I thought when you argued why it was not either of the other two arguments, it really solidified your point and backed up your argument.
Hmmmm I think you were convincing in your first few paragraphs, but I found myself drawn out of it by the last one. I see that you have commented on several other blogs advising them to add a ‘refuatio’. However, if we are to be rhetors, are we not to try to convey the whole truth and convince others of it? I think that in this case it is rather clear that all three of the theses we had to choose from are present within the story, so I just don’t see the point in refuting any of them. Other than that though, I thought you explained yourself well.
That makes sense! Although, when I first read the prompt and while I was writing it, I guess I interpreted it as “Which idea is most present?”. I do agree that all three aspects are present, which are detailed in later posts by others. However, as I said earlier, there was clearly a reason she presented us with three different theses and to argue for one: to allow us to argue which one we felt was most present, which would require us to say why we felt the other two weren’t as present. As I looked back on my refutatio, though, I did realize that I needed to be more specific in that part of the discussion, so thank you for bringing that to my attention!
In 1817, a 22 year-old woman named Mary Shelley wrote a masterpiece called Frankenstein. The first eight chapter of the book are mysterious and haunting. It starts with a man telling another about his horrifying story of creating life. The entire novel is a man versus self story. All of his life, Victor Frankenstein wanted to be better than everyone else. He aspired to discover the newest, best thing which he did. It was electricity. He then became absorbed with a sense of power and decided that his next feat was to create life in order to solve the answer to all of his life problems. Soon, Frankenstein poured his soul into this project. He created this monster piece by piece and then gave it life. Seasons passed of never talking to family all to create this life that he eventually despised. When the monster was given life, he frightened Frankenstein. Finally after getting away from the monster, a friend stops him on the street and after this, Frankenstein has a mental breakdown. He becomes ill for months while the friend takes care of him. He becomes anxious about the monster coming for him and he also fears of talking about it to his friend. He does not want him to think he is crazy. After two years of creating the monster, Frankenstein finally goes back to his family because his kid brother dies suddenly. He returns to the family to offer condolences and to find the murderer. On the way to the house Frankenstein has to stop frequently because he becomes anxious about the monster and seeing the family. He does not want the family to ask him about what he has been doing because he does not want to sound crazy after sharing his story. All of the sudden, the monster appears and Frankenstein knew that he was the killer. Frankenstein tried to tell the family, but the police already found the killer. This ate Victor up inside. He knew he could not let the jury convict an innocent woman for a murder committed by his own creation. Victor became a madmen inside and did not break loose about the monster. He went along with the execution of the innocent family friend. This is a story of a man versus his inner self. Frankenstein is consumed by power and knowledge to even think about nature or society. His passions were focused on the wrong things. He even talks about how he should not have wasted his time building this evil creature. Because he did this, it ruined his mental state. He is always battling with himself and his thoughts about the monster coming after him to possibly cause harm. The monster that he created is now every part of him in action and mind. I think the rest of the story will be about Victor trying to run away from the monster. This is similar to how many may try to run from their own problems they may face from past mistakes.
Sami, I thought your argument contained many great thoughts about the story up to this point. However, I do feel that your argument was very sectioned, so to speak. You provided your introduction, which was good, but I feel like much of the body of the argument was a summary of the story, and then you provided your argument. I feel like this could have been integrated better into your argument. In addition, I feel you could have addressed the other two options, in order to refute two other common arguments provided above. Other than that, I felt your analysis of the story up to this point was great!
I really liked how you opened the blog. Starting with a little background on the author and when the book was written. I also think the use of the adjectives “mysterious” and “haunting” were a nice touch. Great work!
When Frankenstein was written in 1817, Mary Shelley had created a beautiful piece of literature with quite the storyline. The story is all about Victor Frankenstein, who will do anything to become as powerful and knowledgeable as humanly possible. Frankenstein gives his own account of the process of creating life, which ultimately ends up being a struggle between man versus himself. Ever since Frankenstein was little, obtaining knowledge was on his mind. He said “My temper was sometimes violent, and my passions vehement; but by some law in my temperature they were turned not towards childish pursuits but to an eager desire to learn, and not to learn all things indiscriminately. I confess that neither the structure of languages, nor the code of governments, nor the politics of various states possessed attractions for me. It was the secrets of heaven and earth that I desired to learn; and whether it was the outward substance of things or the inner spirit of nature and the mysterious soul of man that occupied me, still my inquiries were directed to the metaphysical, or in it highest sense, the physical secrets of the world.” His desire for knowledge and power was his main problem, and it was apparent in him from a very young age. When he went to college, he learned everything he could from his professors until there was nothing else for him, then he moved onto his big project, which was to create life. For the years he was at college and working on creating the monster, he never once wrote to his family back home, even though he left them at such a vulnerable time after the death of his mother. Along with this, he knew the project he was undertaking was not something that normal, and that there would be questions of morality along the way. When Frankenstein was creating the monster to bring to life, he knew he should have kept in communication with his family and friends back home, but he just simply did not. He felt he was too busy learning and experimenting to make time for it. Not only was he struggling internally with remaining in contact with his family, he also battled with himself on whether or not what he was performing was actually moral. After the monster was created and he runs away from it due to its physical appearance, he figures out that the monster he created is actually responsible for committing a murder, which complicates the situation even more. He is so conflicted internally, thinking to himself about how it ended so badly and the strain it has put on his family. When he is narrating his life story, he says “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be his world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow.” I really think this quote applies to his internal conflict and how the want for more knowledge and power caused him to do these crazy things.
I think rhat your introduction served very well to introduce your argument and that you developed your argument well throughout. Your use of specific examples was good as well.
I think you did a great job of arguing your point of view. However, I think that trying to create life falls under the category of nature because man can not create man scientifically. The creation of a human is done by God making that a form of nature.
I do not agree with your point of man vs. himself because did he ever really get the nurturing he needed from society to help out his case? Although I do not agree I think this is a great argument. You back up your arguing points very well. Great job and also love the dedication of posting this at almost three in the morning
The pervasive stench of electric apprehension suffocates the dark, dank room. Fear of failure and giddiness at the prospect of success override the weakening ache that plagues his limbs. Adrenaline makes his own heartbeat, skipping and stuttering in his ears and throat, the only sound to reverberate off the walls. And then it happens. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is the story of a man who seeks his own ultimate destruction. Evidently, the pursuit of knowledge becomes that which undoes the protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, in this cautionary tale of man versus nature. Victor seeks truth, as made evident by his relentless pursuit of the sciences. His pride, however, infects his work and causes him to do the unthinkable. Allusions to other works emphasize a singular, recurrent point within the context of the novel: if nature is God’s creation, then transgressions against nature can be equated with transgressions against God, and as such, divine retribution will be sure to follow. One such work referenced is in direct correlation to the full title of Shelley’s Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus. Prometheus, within the Romantic Era, was associated with tragedy and its relationship to the quest for knowledge. Within the Greek mythos, Prometheus is best known for being the Titan who formed man from clay and stole fire from the gods for his survival. The subtitle “The Modern Prometheus” speaks volumes about Victor, his God complex, and his relationship to his monster. Much like Prometheus, he also formed his creation out of that which comes from the earth. Prometheus made man from clay, and Frankenstein made his monster from the dead. Prometheus stole fire from the gods to give man life. Victor reanimates his abomination through currently undisclosed means, however due to his fixation on the tree struck down by lighting and media interpretation of the scene, it may be, in this case, safe to assume that his life-giving act had to do with electrifying the makeshift corpse. Both spend the rest of their lives paying for their decision to light the fire behind the eyes of their creations. Prometheus is ultimately chained to a mountain and cursed to perpetually have his liver plucked out by vultures. Victor has something greater taken from him—his heart. If the past is any indication of the future, then it may be sufficient to assume that Victor will ultimately lose all those he has ever loved to his monster. Chapter eight speaks to this in the last line that reads, “Thus spoke my prophetic soul, as, torn by remorse, horror, and despair, I beheld those I loved spend vain sorrow upon...the first hapless victims to my unhallowed arts.” Prometheus’s punishment at the hands of the gods matches Victor’s brought down by the wrath of God. The myth of Prometheus is not the only story alluded to in Frankenstein. The Rime of the Ancient Mariner shares many thematic beats with the two aforementioned stories. In this case, one can draw parallels between Victor’s life-giving and the Mariner’s life-taking acts. Both seek greatness and glory only to make a grave and fallacious error. Victor’s monster is the allegorical albatross hanging around his neck keeping him from peace and ensuring his suffering. Even when the imminent threat is gone, both men are haunted by their decisions as is made evident in Robert Walton’s letters. Both the Mariner and Frankenstein feel they must tell their stories, as seen in the novel when Frankenstein says, “I had determined at one time that the memory of these evils should die with me, but you have won me to alter my determination.” Frankenstein is a story of the perversion of nature and the consequences of such. It details the dangers of glory-seeking and pride, and even hints at the concept of divine retribution through parallelism and allusion. They say knowledge is power, but perhaps, in Frankenstein’s case, it would be better if he had never conceived the idea. For Frankenstein, the pursuit of knowledge and power can only result in suffering.
I really liked your introduction. It’s really unique when put against the normal blogs. I will say, it’s a little difficult to follow. It jumps from one point to the other, without any real divisions. Perhaps dividing it into paragraphs would have helped organize it? In any case, a really good argument.
I’ll be honest and up front, I don’t really have a great argument for any of these. I’ll give it a try though. I think Frankenstein is a man versus nature story more than the other choices as Frankenstein is doing everything he can to defy nature. It is not exactly natural to able to give life to a corpse or to pursue alchemy as a proper field of study. In fact, that’s about the furthest from natural you can get. It might not be a conscious effort to defy nature and combat nearly every law of nature there is, but if you steal something accidentally, is it not still theft? In this way, I think that even though Frankenstein does not truly attempt to battle nature and the natural way of things, it still presents itself as a battle against nature.
Dude, you really need to step it up a notch or two. Week after week, you have little more than a skeleton of a post. If you don't provide any "meat," how is anyone supposed to comment effectively? You have the basics here, but you seriously need to put some actual effort into giving your argument some depth
I agree with Jarret, your missing the whole point. If you don’t understand something, you figure it out. It’s AP for a reason. You have a skeleton of an argument and it doesn’t help anyone here develop their writing in any way. Put some actual effort into it. Five-minute posts show.
Luke, every week I try to read through all of the posts and comments to get an idea of what others think and how maybe I can advance my writing. When I come to yours I can always discern what you think, because you clearly lay out an idea, but you back it up with very little, and sometimes, no evidence. I remember writing a comment to you on this issue a few weeks ago, and I said that if you would put some fact behind your opinion, you could make a TREMENDOUS argument, because your ideas really are creative!!!! I disagree with your first two sentences when you say you can’t make an argument for any case and that you might not fully understand; you just don’t take the time and put in the effort that are required in this class! If you would couple your creative ideas with just a bit more time and effort, your blogs could truly be great! And, finally, I won’t comment on these anymore if they’re short like this; we have provided you with plenty of advice week after week, month after month, in how to advance your argument. It’s up to you to take it.
Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein presents an ideological conflict. An ideological conflict that is equally applicable today as it was all the way back in 1818. The ideological conflict is simple —how far is too far. The main character, Victor Frankenstein, constantly struggles with himself over how far he should be going in his pursuit of life. Frankenstein, in essence, is the story of a man against himself.
The most obvious example of Victor Frankenstein doubting his own morals is present in the monster. The monster, a creation of Frankenstein, is a representation of what Frankenstein’s pride has wrought. So far, his pride is the cause of two deaths.
The monster is a direct extension of Frankenstein’s pride, and it causes him to reconsider his stance on how far is too far. Initially, he holds no restrictions on pushing science. However, at some point, as evidenced in the opening letters, he has a change of heart. He refuses to tell Robert the elixir of life, for fear of another incident. We can see a result of Frankenstein’s inner conflict, a complete turn around. Frankenstein constantly reminds Robert in the opening letters, “don’t repeat my mistake,” “don’t be like me,” “don’t do what I did.” He regrets his former actions. He himself, more than his monster, is his antagonist. His mistakes brought about at least two deaths, and likely many more to come.
Frankenstein is truly a story of the modern Prometheus, but the monster is not the firebrand titan in question, it is Frankenstein. Frankenstein brought humans the power only possessed by God, and he’s suffering from it. He created the monster for good, and he was punished by his actions. As shown in the introduction, he reexamines his ideals, and eventually turns around completely. However, going by the ending of the tale of Prometheus, it will be far too late. His past antagonistic actions are too great for what he may later do to correct his mistakes. Frankenstein is doomed to be tormented for his actions, just as Prometheus was left to be pecked at by vultures.
This is argued very well. However, I would have tried adding more information to your second paragraph or including the information into a different paragraph because it is extremely short. Other than that, great work.
Not only was this blog full of good information, but the formatting was perfect. As someone who really has trouble following an argument of any degree, the spacing and use of sepereate paragraphs is much appreciated. I’m definitely going to use this method in the future. Good job!
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is an amazing classic. Not only does it envelop the reader into a new world, but it also provides so much symbolism and deeper meaning. In many ways, Frankenstein alludes to a man vs self story. By this I mean that most of if not all of the examples of external conflict are meant to symbolize internal conflict. The most prominent example would be the monster. Frankenstein’s monster is meant to symbolize the monster within himself. Victor physically piecing the monster together is symbolic of all the ways he allowed this monster to creep in. The monster took control because of his neglect of his family and friends, because of how wrapped up he was in his studies, and most importantly because of his pride. In the beginning, we see victor as a happy man, but as the story progresses, he becomes increasingly saddened up until the creation of his monster. At this point, Frankenstein seems to be at his lowest, he as allowed the monster to take over inside of him. It is widely known that in times of grief, people will often look at someone or something to blame. This monster is Frankenstein’s way of blaming himself. He blames himself for the death of William and the conviction of Justine, both people who he truly loves. He feels as if he could have helped if he was at home, rather than away focusing only on an his studies. He feels that if he would have replied to just one letter, or maybe came and visited just once, this wouldn’t have happened. The monster is Frankenstein’s way of blaming himself for all of the pain and hardship brought upon his family.
Evan, through reading your blog, I saw that you really understand the relationship between Frankenstein and his monster. However, I do feel that you could have provided a few more places in the book where this idea is expressed to construct a better argument. Since this was an argument, I also think you should have tried to refute the two other arguments. Finally, you’re ideas were really great, and with a bit more work, I think your whole argument could be great!
I am really impressed by your analytical approach to the story and the parallels present. Each and every point you present is unique, and you connect them all really well. I have to agree with Isaac here when he says that it would do you well to add references from the text. You don’t necessarily need direct quotes as reference, but I think it would only serve to make your blog better.
Mary Shelley’s classic 1817 novel “Frankenstein” was and continues to be one of the most captivating science-fiction novels out there. The novel chronicles the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young man whose passion for science collided with his hunger for power. While Frankenstein struggles with a number of roadblocks in achieving the power to create a living, breathing being, none other is more prevalent that an obvious conflict between man and nature. As a boy, Victor Frankenstein was an inquisitive, thoughtful little scamp. He loved to read about the ways the ancient philosophers explained the sciences, and he vowed to someday put the knowledge he had gained to use. When the young Victor Frankenstein arrived to study at Ingolstadt, he brought with him a desire to learn the sciences in the way the philosophers of yore had learned and discovered them. In exploring these pathways, he soon fell in love with anatomy, the study of the human body, and quickly devoted all of his time to it. In studying the human body, particularly when using cadavers, Frankenstein was upset by the way the way the body decayed upon the cessation of life. At this, he resolved to find a way to keep life going; that is, to find a way to extend the life of a body that suffered an unfair, untimely loss of its ability to function. A fire was lit inside him, and he spent day after day, week after week, year after year trying to manipulate biology to restore life, with the ultimate goal to “renew life where death had devoted the body to corruption,” with corruption being the body’s conversion to little more than worm food after death. In his attempts to extend life, Victor experienced many failures. Rather than abandon his study pick up a more practical discipline, Victor kept trying, determined to find a way around the principles of biology that would allow life to be extended. Clearly, spending years attempting to overpower the way biology works, but to no avail, would indeed be a conflict between man and nature. Some may argue that this is an argument between man and himself. And sure, Frankenstein’s manipulation of biology was only for his own selfish desire to have the power to prevent death and promote the continuity of earthly life. But in order to achieve this power, he first needed to mess around with science. If the path was already laid out for him, and he did not need to manipulate biology, I would agree that he is having a man versus self conflict, because the only issue then would be that he wanted to have the power to extend life. However, since he needed to study anatomy and spend YEARS experimenting with anatomy on the bodies of the recently-deceased, I stand firm in my argument that Frankenstein’s conflict lies between himself and nature.
I like the argument you chose because I never thought of th book like this. Great job statig the evidence in the book and backing it up with why it is relavant. Also, I really liked how you had some refutatio in the last paragraph.
Although this isn't the side I would have argued, it definitely gave me a different perspective on the book. You backed up your points very well and really bad every aspect of an argument in there. Great job
The great masterpiece Frankenstein was created from the brilliant mind of Mary Shelley. Released in 1817, this book is filled with mystery and chaos from one man, Victor Frankenstein. Victor creates a monster after indulging himself into the study of science. This monster is too much for Victor, who is the creator of it. The path Victor took to create this monster is full of the need for power and knowledge. Victor has an internal battle with himself in the process of creating the monster. Victor easily became obsessed with discovering the mysteries of the human body. This obsession caused him to forget his health and social life. This action alludes at how people can become too caught up in something, and the result can be unhealthy. Victor also removed himself from his family which hurts his family. He has to be “caught up”on his own family’s situation at home. His relationship with Elizabeth and his other siblings is greatly affected. He used to be close with his siblings, yet now, he does not even speak to them. This disconnection is, in a way, making Victor less human. He is going through his studies motion by motion wit his only thought on his obsession. The obsession makes Victor hungry for the power and knowledge of life. He is craving for the ability to understand how life can be made, which results in him making a monster. This monster can represent Victor’s inside. He is frightened by the aight and noises of the monster, and abandons his creation. This represents how Victor’s emotions and feelings are pushed to the side and not dealt with properly. Victor scares himself with the monster he created. He accomplished his task and does not like the end result. The disconnections and the creation of the monster reflect how Victor became too obsessed and unaware of the path he went down. Power and knowledge is not all it seems to be. It makes the person feel accomplished in the moment, but it leaves an everlasting effect on relationships and emotions. Victor became too involved, and Mary Shelley beautifully shows this in the book. Without self-control and awareness of one’s life, people can have internal conflicts without realizing it until the damage is done.
In 1817, Mary Shelley wrote a marvelous novel called “Frankenstein.” Mary Shelley wrote this book in order to explain different opinions about the creation of life. Life was created by a scientist who was curious about the anatomy of human creation. Since Frankenstein was the creator of a new “creature,” this novel is mostly man vs. nature.
Although Frankenstein is pretty much a genius, he is still faced with daily struggles just like everyone else in the world. It is man vs. nature because Frankenstein was trying to act like he was God since he was trying to create a human. We all know that only God can create a healthy and happy person. Since Frankenstein is not God, he could not successfully create someone. Frankenstein said, “Scientists penetrate into the recess of nature and show how she works in her hiding-places. They ascend into the heavens; they have discovered how blood circulates, and the nature of the air we breathe. They have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of heaven, mimic the earthquake, and even mock the invisible world with its own shadows.” This quote is a perfect example of how this novel is man vs. nature because how the body works falls under the category or nature because technically a whole body should not be able to be made, but not in this instance. Throughout the book, Frankenstein is always trying to escape seeing his friends and family which causes him to fall into nature. He enjoyed the thought of being alone and adventuring by himself. Although being alone in the mountains was a great way to escape reality, he needed to realize his mistake that he made — trying to create a person. When his creation starts to kill people he loved, he believed everything was his fault.
It is truly difficult to argue if this novel is man vs. nature, man vs. self, or man vs. society because everyone has a different view point of this story. However, I truly believe this is an example of man vs. nature because of all of the incidents that happen throughout the story. What Frankenstein is trying to do is something that really should not be able to be done. Even though organs and other body parts can be created today, nobody should be able to create a full body because that is not our job to fully design and create another life.
Mrs. Messineo spoke to us about showing we know logos, pathos, and ethos without stating them. Personally, I think this is what should’ve been done with the prompt (man vs. nature). I felt like you were trying to solidify your point by just bringing it up repeatedly.
Emma does bring a good point up about introducing logos, pathos, and ethos. The argument also brought up some great points. I think you did a great job!
Conformity seems to always be relevant in society. Whether it is the presence or lack of it, individuality scares people. While not all individuality is a positive thing, the concept should not be looked down upon. In Frankenstein, this concept is quite prevalent. Perhaps it is because author Mary Shelley faced obstacles such as these in her own life.
Victor Frankenstein had quite the ideal childhood. He loved his family, his friends, and his studies. However, this all took place in somewhat of a bubble. His studies had no major impact on those around him, so they felt no need to bother him with the reality that he was wrong. Attending College, his professor pegs him as a fool for believing in something that had already been refuted. This lack of acceptance makes Victor feel as though he has wasted his time on something that was deemed inadequate. He becomes a shell of himself; he becomes too afraid of the world to even live in it.
When Frankenstein creates his monster, he has unrealistic expectations for it. He completely disregards the essence of humanity. People are not shaped by their anatomy, so to speak. Society and the environment in which the grow affect their entire existence. Victor had an entire life full of situation that taught him to learn, live, and love. He is the product of his experiences. Had he never been exposed to such things, he would have nothing to base his thoughts, feelings, and actions on. When he creates his monster, Victor expects him to be fully functional and societally centered. The monster, however, has never been taught any of this information. It has no ideals. It has no morals. It has no emotion. While it may have physical life, it has had no direction from its creator on what is right and wrong. How can it be blamed for nonconformity when it does not even know what society is?
Frankenstein’s monster is completely set up to be hated by society. Seclusion and disownment were the only experiences that he ever came to know. Without proper direction, who is to say that any person might not end up like this?
Mary Shelley created one of the greatest fictional works in Frankenstein by adding countless underlying meanings to it. This book is truly a masterpiece because it can be perceived in so many different ways. Shelley writes about a man named Victor Frankenstein who is knowledge and power hungry. He searches for the “elixir” of life through countless studies through many different people, and in the end he realizes how unimportant that is. Throughout the novel, many people he encounters are constantly criticizing who he studies from, influencing him on who to study, and he encounters many sorrows from losing people around him. This makes the story truly a man vs. society situation. Victor first studies from two natural philosophers named Cornelius Agrippa and Paracelsu. Back in his home country Geneva, these are the only scientists or philosophers he knew of. Once he went to Ingolstadt to study, his professors M. Krempe and Waldman practically made fun of who he studied. M. Krempe was the main source of criticism and said it was far too outdated. He suggested the newer and more modern science, which only furthered Victor’s frustration and his hunger for power and knowledge. M. Krempe’s criticism gave him more of a motive to create the monster. Waldman was more accepting of Victor. He took him in as his apprentice and gave him more of the knowledge he needed to complete his task. If it weren’t for the influences of these two men, Victor may have never reached his full potential and the monster could have been avoided all together. These two men lead to a clash between the modern scientists of society and Victor himself. He believed that these modern scientists were foolish in their findings and were constantly searching for the wrong things. Victor had his mind set on one task and his dislike for modern scientists made him want to complete his task even more. Victor wanted to prove that he was more powerful and intelligent than these men or women. He wanted to be the greatest of them all. This societal conflict between scientists and Victor was a significant part of his ultimate downfall. One last example is all of the sorrow Victor went through within his society. He had to leave his family, who ultimately helps keep him sane. His mother died, who was one of the most important people in his life. His mother dying made him want to find out where life came from and how to stop people from dying. This was his ultimate motive to go out and create the elixir of life. Losing people closest to him put a permanent hurt into his own mind. Victor had many problems with the people around him. They frustrated him and only made his hunger for power stronger. This frustration lead to an obsession to become the best scientist there ever was, even greater than God although impossible. All of these people greatly impacted Victor’s mental health and pushed him ultimately down the wrong path.
You did a great job stating your view and then thoroughly explaining. Also, i liked how you chose the standpoint of man vs. society because I did not see it that way.
Within Mary Shelley’s classic Frankenstein lie a wide range of messages intended to bring the reader a deeper understanding of the nature of man and what is around him. These ideas are revealed through the main character, Victor Frankenstein, a man willing to do anything to attain knowledge for the sake of power. In this way, in regards to the first portion of the story narrated by Frankenstein himself, it is clear that Shelley establishes Frankenstein’s story on one primary theme: the idea of internal conflict, man versus self.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Frankenstein’s narration of his tale in search of knowledge and power, it seems as if he is constantly facing a dilemma (generally one of morality) that fully consumes him. Internally, he questions the path he takes to achieve his goals, yet, while in the process, he never fully turns away from this path. Frankenstein expresses this while he discusses the creation of his monster, stating that “I thought that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter … I might renew life where death had devoted the body to corruption. These thoughts supported my spirits.” In this statement, Frankenstein makes the implication that he battled with the morality of his actions, but essentially, he rationalizes, in the end, that the ends really do justify the means. He later states that, at one point, he discontinues his studies for a brief period of time, but later resumes them as his ambition reanimates him. This conflict, which lies at the forefront of the story, is one in which Frankenstein attempts to overcome his own selfish desires -- his own nature -- in order to veer away from a path of sin and guilt. He obviously fails to do so, as he continues to pursue knowledge, merely for the sake of power. It is clear that at this moment in his narration, the conflict within himself becomes one of rationalization, the primary factor in his reanimation; this is what leads to his demise.
In addition to the rationalization component of this man versus self idea, Frankenstein does not control his passions; his passions control him. As has been mentioned, Frankenstein, while on his “path to glory,” is ambitious and pursues power with no aim of stopping for anything or anyone. He studies without speaking to his family for years when they face a time of grief. He is so consumed in attaining his goals that he isolates himself from those who love him the most, and who may redirect his passions towards what is good, true, and beautiful. This internal aspect of Frankenstein, his lack of self-restraint, further leads him to become a slave to his passions. Clearly, this vulnerability of self is what leads Frankenstein to his downfall.
While some might argue that Frankenstein is primarily a story about man versus nature or man versus society, it seems that Frankenstein himself, as well as the character of the parallel story, Robert Walton, would not say the same. Neither Frankenstein nor Walton ever seem to be concerned about society’s imposed standards and thoughts on life and the North Pole, respectively, so in this way, they do not seemed to be concerned with what they will face along the way, the nature or the gravity of their actions. Instead, each is concerned for themselves only and their deepest desires. Walton, in a letter to his sister Margaret writes, “my father’s dying injunction had forbidden my uncle to allow me to embark in a seafaring life,” and later writes that, now that he can travel, he prefers “glory to every enticement that wealth placed in my path.” This mirrors Frankenstein’s thirst for knowledge, desire for self-gain, and willingness to give up everything for glory, a clear display of the fact that Shelley’s story is one revolving around one theme: man versus man’s inner self.
I definitely agree with you on the fact that it was a man versus self story, and I thought when you argued why it was not either of the other two arguments, it really solidified your point and backed up your argument.
DeleteHmmmm I think you were convincing in your first few paragraphs, but I found myself drawn out of it by the last one. I see that you have commented on several other blogs advising them to add a ‘refuatio’. However, if we are to be rhetors, are we not to try to convey the whole truth and convince others of it? I think that in this case it is rather clear that all three of the theses we had to choose from are present within the story, so I just don’t see the point in refuting any of them. Other than that though, I thought you explained yourself well.
DeleteThat makes sense! Although, when I first read the prompt and while I was writing it, I guess I interpreted it as “Which idea is most present?”. I do agree that all three aspects are present, which are detailed in later posts by others. However, as I said earlier, there was clearly a reason she presented us with three different theses and to argue for one: to allow us to argue which one we felt was most present, which would require us to say why we felt the other two weren’t as present. As I looked back on my refutatio, though, I did realize that I needed to be more specific in that part of the discussion, so thank you for bringing that to my attention!
DeleteIn 1817, a 22 year-old woman named Mary Shelley wrote a masterpiece called Frankenstein. The first eight chapter of the book are mysterious and haunting. It starts with a man telling another about his horrifying story of creating life. The entire novel is a man versus self story. All of his life, Victor Frankenstein wanted to be better than everyone else. He aspired to discover the newest, best thing which he did. It was electricity. He then became absorbed with a sense of power and decided that his next feat was to create life in order to solve the answer to all of his life problems. Soon, Frankenstein poured his soul into this project. He created this monster piece by piece and then gave it life. Seasons passed of never talking to family all to create this life that he eventually despised.
ReplyDeleteWhen the monster was given life, he frightened Frankenstein. Finally after getting away from the monster, a friend stops him on the street and after this, Frankenstein has a mental breakdown. He becomes ill for months while the friend takes care of him. He becomes anxious about the monster coming for him and he also fears of talking about it to his friend. He does not want him to think he is crazy. After two years of creating the monster, Frankenstein finally goes back to his family because his kid brother dies suddenly. He returns to the family to offer condolences and to find the murderer. On the way to the house Frankenstein has to stop frequently because he becomes anxious about the monster and seeing the family. He does not want the family to ask him about what he has been doing because he does not want to sound crazy after sharing his story. All of the sudden, the monster appears and Frankenstein knew that he was the killer. Frankenstein tried to tell the family, but the police already found the killer. This ate Victor up inside. He knew he could not let the jury convict an innocent woman for a murder committed by his own creation. Victor became a madmen inside and did not break loose about the monster. He went along with the execution of the innocent family friend.
This is a story of a man versus his inner self. Frankenstein is consumed by power and knowledge to even think about nature or society. His passions were focused on the wrong things. He even talks about how he should not have wasted his time building this evil creature. Because he did this, it ruined his mental state. He is always battling with himself and his thoughts about the monster coming after him to possibly cause harm. The monster that he created is now every part of him in action and mind. I think the rest of the story will be about Victor trying to run away from the monster. This is similar to how many may try to run from their own problems they may face from past mistakes.
Sami, I thought your argument contained many great thoughts about the story up to this point. However, I do feel that your argument was very sectioned, so to speak. You provided your introduction, which was good, but I feel like much of the body of the argument was a summary of the story, and then you provided your argument. I feel like this could have been integrated better into your argument. In addition, I feel you could have addressed the other two options, in order to refute two other common arguments provided above. Other than that, I felt your analysis of the story up to this point was great!
DeleteYour synopsis was very good, and you did a solid job backing up the points you were making with specific events that happened in the story.
DeleteI thought you did a great job opening up for you argument and then stating where in the story you’re picking your points from.
DeleteI really liked how you opened the blog. Starting with a little background on the author and when the book was written. I also think the use of the adjectives “mysterious” and “haunting” were a nice touch. Great work!
DeleteWhen Frankenstein was written in 1817, Mary Shelley had created a beautiful piece of literature with quite the storyline. The story is all about Victor Frankenstein, who will do anything to become as powerful and knowledgeable as humanly possible. Frankenstein gives his own account of the process of creating life, which ultimately ends up being a struggle between man versus himself.
ReplyDeleteEver since Frankenstein was little, obtaining knowledge was on his mind. He said “My temper was sometimes violent, and my passions vehement; but by some law in my temperature they were turned not towards childish pursuits but to an eager desire to learn, and not to learn all things indiscriminately. I confess that neither the structure of languages, nor the code of governments, nor the politics of various states possessed attractions for me. It was the secrets of heaven and earth that I desired to learn; and whether it was the outward substance of things or the inner spirit of nature and the mysterious soul of man that occupied me, still my inquiries were directed to the metaphysical, or in it highest sense, the physical secrets of the world.” His desire for knowledge and power was his main problem, and it was apparent in him from a very young age. When he went to college, he learned everything he could from his professors until there was nothing else for him, then he moved onto his big project, which was to create life. For the years he was at college and working on creating the monster, he never once wrote to his family back home, even though he left them at such a vulnerable time after the death of his mother. Along with this, he knew the project he was undertaking was not something that normal, and that there would be questions of morality along the way.
When Frankenstein was creating the monster to bring to life, he knew he should have kept in communication with his family and friends back home, but he just simply did not. He felt he was too busy learning and experimenting to make time for it. Not only was he struggling internally with remaining in contact with his family, he also battled with himself on whether or not what he was performing was actually moral. After the monster was created and he runs away from it due to its physical appearance, he figures out that the monster he created is actually responsible for committing a murder, which complicates the situation even more. He is so conflicted internally, thinking to himself about how it ended so badly and the strain it has put on his family. When he is narrating his life story, he says “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be his world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow.” I really think this quote applies to his internal conflict and how the want for more knowledge and power caused him to do these crazy things.
I think rhat your introduction served very well to introduce your argument and that you developed your argument well throughout. Your use of specific examples was good as well.
DeleteI think you did a great job of arguing your point of view. However, I think that trying to create life falls under the category of nature because man can not create man scientifically. The creation of a human is done by God making that a form of nature.
DeleteI do not agree with your point of man vs. himself because did he ever really get the nurturing he needed from society to help out his case? Although I do not agree I think this is a great argument. You back up your arguing points very well. Great job and also love the dedication of posting this at almost three in the morning
DeleteThe pervasive stench of electric apprehension suffocates the dark, dank room. Fear of failure and giddiness at the prospect of success override the weakening ache that plagues his limbs. Adrenaline makes his own heartbeat, skipping and stuttering in his ears and throat, the only sound to reverberate off the walls. And then it happens. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is the story of a man who seeks his own ultimate destruction. Evidently, the pursuit of knowledge becomes that which undoes the protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, in this cautionary tale of man versus nature. Victor seeks truth, as made evident by his relentless pursuit of the sciences. His pride, however, infects his work and causes him to do the unthinkable. Allusions to other works emphasize a singular, recurrent point within the context of the novel: if nature is God’s creation, then transgressions against nature can be equated with transgressions against God, and as such, divine retribution will be sure to follow. One such work referenced is in direct correlation to the full title of Shelley’s Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus. Prometheus, within the Romantic Era, was associated with tragedy and its relationship to the quest for knowledge. Within the Greek mythos, Prometheus is best known for being the Titan who formed man from clay and stole fire from the gods for his survival. The subtitle “The Modern Prometheus” speaks volumes about Victor, his God complex, and his relationship to his monster. Much like Prometheus, he also formed his creation out of that which comes from the earth. Prometheus made man from clay, and Frankenstein made his monster from the dead. Prometheus stole fire from the gods to give man life. Victor reanimates his abomination through currently undisclosed means, however due to his fixation on the tree struck down by lighting and media interpretation of the scene, it may be, in this case, safe to assume that his life-giving act had to do with electrifying the makeshift corpse. Both spend the rest of their lives paying for their decision to light the fire behind the eyes of their creations. Prometheus is ultimately chained to a mountain and cursed to perpetually have his liver plucked out by vultures. Victor has something greater taken from him—his heart. If the past is any indication of the future, then it may be sufficient to assume that Victor will ultimately lose all those he has ever loved to his monster. Chapter eight speaks to this in the last line that reads, “Thus spoke my prophetic soul, as, torn by remorse, horror, and despair, I beheld those I loved spend vain sorrow upon...the first hapless victims to my unhallowed arts.” Prometheus’s punishment at the hands of the gods matches Victor’s brought down by the wrath of God. The myth of Prometheus is not the only story alluded to in Frankenstein. The Rime of the Ancient Mariner shares many thematic beats with the two aforementioned stories. In this case, one can draw parallels between Victor’s life-giving and the Mariner’s life-taking acts. Both seek greatness and glory only to make a grave and fallacious error. Victor’s monster is the allegorical albatross hanging around his neck keeping him from peace and ensuring his suffering. Even when the imminent threat is gone, both men are haunted by their decisions as is made evident in Robert Walton’s letters. Both the Mariner and Frankenstein feel they must tell their stories, as seen in the novel when Frankenstein says, “I had determined at one time that the memory of these evils should die with me, but you have won me to alter my determination.” Frankenstein is a story of the perversion of nature and the consequences of such. It details the dangers of glory-seeking and pride, and even hints at the concept of divine retribution through parallelism and allusion. They say knowledge is power, but perhaps, in Frankenstein’s case, it would be better if he had never conceived the idea. For Frankenstein, the pursuit of knowledge and power can only result in suffering.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your introduction. It’s really unique when put against the normal blogs. I will say, it’s a little difficult to follow. It jumps from one point to the other, without any real divisions. Perhaps dividing it into paragraphs would have helped organize it? In any case, a really good argument.
DeleteWow, thank you so much for the feedback. I never even stopped to think that the blog could be divided into paragraphs.
DeleteI’ll be honest and up front, I don’t really have a great argument for any of these. I’ll give it a try though. I think Frankenstein is a man versus nature story more than the other choices as Frankenstein is doing everything he can to defy nature. It is not exactly natural to able to give life to a corpse or to pursue alchemy as a proper field of study. In fact, that’s about the furthest from natural you can get. It might not be a conscious effort to defy nature and combat nearly every law of nature there is, but if you steal something accidentally, is it not still theft? In this way, I think that even though Frankenstein does not truly attempt to battle nature and the natural way of things, it still presents itself as a battle against nature.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDude, you really need to step it up a notch or two. Week after week, you have little more than a skeleton of a post. If you don't provide any "meat," how is anyone supposed to comment effectively? You have the basics here, but you seriously need to put some actual effort into giving your argument some depth
DeleteI agree with Jarret, your missing the whole point. If you don’t understand something, you figure it out. It’s AP for a reason. You have a skeleton of an argument and it doesn’t help anyone here develop their writing in any way. Put some actual effort into it. Five-minute posts show.
DeleteLuke, every week I try to read through all of the posts and comments to get an idea of what others think and how maybe I can advance my writing. When I come to yours I can always discern what you think, because you clearly lay out an idea, but you back it up with very little, and sometimes, no evidence. I remember writing a comment to you on this issue a few weeks ago, and I said that if you would put some fact behind your opinion, you could make a TREMENDOUS argument, because your ideas really are creative!!!! I disagree with your first two sentences when you say you can’t make an argument for any case and that you might not fully understand; you just don’t take the time and put in the effort that are required in this class! If you would couple your creative ideas with just a bit more time and effort, your blogs could truly be great! And, finally, I won’t comment on these anymore if they’re short like this; we have provided you with plenty of advice week after week, month after month, in how to advance your argument. It’s up to you to take it.
DeleteMary Shelly’s Frankenstein presents an ideological conflict. An ideological conflict that is equally applicable today as it was all the way back in 1818. The ideological conflict is simple —how far is too far. The main character, Victor Frankenstein, constantly struggles with himself over how far he should be going in his pursuit of life. Frankenstein, in essence, is the story of a man against himself.
ReplyDeleteThe most obvious example of Victor Frankenstein doubting his own morals is present in the monster. The monster, a creation of Frankenstein, is a representation of what Frankenstein’s pride has wrought. So far, his pride is the cause of two deaths.
The monster is a direct extension of Frankenstein’s pride, and it causes him to reconsider his stance on how far is too far. Initially, he holds no restrictions on pushing science. However, at some point, as evidenced in the opening letters, he has a change of heart. He refuses to tell Robert the elixir of life, for fear of another incident. We can see a result of Frankenstein’s inner conflict, a complete turn around. Frankenstein constantly reminds Robert in the opening letters, “don’t repeat my mistake,” “don’t be like me,” “don’t do what I did.” He regrets his former actions. He himself, more than his monster, is his antagonist. His mistakes brought about at least two deaths, and likely many more to come.
Frankenstein is truly a story of the modern Prometheus, but the monster is not the firebrand titan in question, it is Frankenstein. Frankenstein brought humans the power only possessed by God, and he’s suffering from it. He created the monster for good, and he was punished by his actions. As shown in the introduction, he reexamines his ideals, and eventually turns around completely. However, going by the ending of the tale of Prometheus, it will be far too late. His past antagonistic actions are too great for what he may later do to correct his mistakes. Frankenstein is doomed to be tormented for his actions, just as Prometheus was left to be pecked at by vultures.
This is argued very well. However, I would have tried adding more information to your second paragraph or including the information into a different paragraph because it is extremely short. Other than that, great work.
DeleteNot only was this blog full of good information, but the formatting was perfect. As someone who really has trouble following an argument of any degree, the spacing and use of sepereate paragraphs is much appreciated. I’m definitely going to use this method in the future. Good job!
DeleteMary Shelley’s Frankenstein is an amazing classic. Not only does it envelop the reader into a new world, but it also provides so much symbolism and deeper meaning. In many ways, Frankenstein alludes to a man vs self story. By this I mean that most of if not all of the examples of external conflict are meant to symbolize internal conflict. The most prominent example would be the monster. Frankenstein’s monster is meant to symbolize the monster within himself. Victor physically piecing the monster together is symbolic of all the ways he allowed this monster to creep in. The monster took control because of his neglect of his family and friends, because of how wrapped up he was in his studies, and most importantly because of his pride. In the beginning, we see victor as a happy man, but as the story progresses, he becomes increasingly saddened up until the creation of his monster. At this point, Frankenstein seems to be at his lowest, he as allowed the monster to take over inside of him. It is widely known that in times of grief, people will often look at someone or something to blame. This monster is Frankenstein’s way of blaming himself. He blames himself for the death of William and the conviction of Justine, both people who he truly loves. He feels as if he could have helped if he was at home, rather than away focusing only on an his studies. He feels that if he would have replied to just one letter, or maybe came and visited just once, this wouldn’t have happened. The monster is Frankenstein’s way of blaming himself for all of the pain and hardship brought upon his family.
ReplyDeleteEvan, through reading your blog, I saw that you really understand the relationship between Frankenstein and his monster. However, I do feel that you could have provided a few more places in the book where this idea is expressed to construct a better argument. Since this was an argument, I also think you should have tried to refute the two other arguments. Finally, you’re ideas were really great, and with a bit more work, I think your whole argument could be great!
DeleteI am really impressed by your analytical approach to the story and the parallels present. Each and every point you present is unique, and you connect them all really well. I have to agree with Isaac here when he says that it would do you well to add references from the text. You don’t necessarily need direct quotes as reference, but I think it would only serve to make your blog better.
DeleteMary Shelley’s classic 1817 novel “Frankenstein” was and continues to be one of the most captivating science-fiction novels out there. The novel chronicles the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young man whose passion for science collided with his hunger for power. While Frankenstein struggles with a number of roadblocks in achieving the power to create a living, breathing being, none other is more prevalent that an obvious conflict between man and nature.
ReplyDeleteAs a boy, Victor Frankenstein was an inquisitive, thoughtful little scamp. He loved to read about the ways the ancient philosophers explained the sciences, and he vowed to someday put the knowledge he had gained to use. When the young Victor Frankenstein arrived to study at Ingolstadt, he brought with him a desire to learn the sciences in the way the philosophers of yore had learned and discovered them. In exploring these pathways, he soon fell in love with anatomy, the study of the human body, and quickly devoted all of his time to it. In studying the human body, particularly when using cadavers, Frankenstein was upset by the way the way the body decayed upon the cessation of life. At this, he resolved to find a way to keep life going; that is, to find a way to extend the life of a body that suffered an unfair, untimely loss of its ability to function. A fire was lit inside him, and he spent day after day, week after week, year after year trying to manipulate biology to restore life, with the ultimate goal to “renew life where death had devoted the body to corruption,” with corruption being the body’s conversion to little more than worm food after death. In his attempts to extend life, Victor experienced many failures. Rather than abandon his study pick up a more practical discipline, Victor kept trying, determined to find a way around the principles of biology that would allow life to be extended. Clearly, spending years attempting to overpower the way biology works, but to no avail, would indeed be a conflict between man and nature.
Some may argue that this is an argument between man and himself. And sure, Frankenstein’s manipulation of biology was only for his own selfish desire to have the power to prevent death and promote the continuity of earthly life. But in order to achieve this power, he first needed to mess around with science. If the path was already laid out for him, and he did not need to manipulate biology, I would agree that he is having a man versus self conflict, because the only issue then would be that he wanted to have the power to extend life. However, since he needed to study anatomy and spend YEARS experimenting with anatomy on the bodies of the recently-deceased, I stand firm in my argument that Frankenstein’s conflict lies between himself and nature.
I like the argument you chose because I never thought of th book like this. Great job statig the evidence in the book and backing it up with why it is relavant. Also, I really liked how you had some refutatio in the last paragraph.
DeleteAlthough this isn't the side I would have argued, it definitely gave me a different perspective on the book. You backed up your points very well and really bad every aspect of an argument in there. Great job
DeleteThe great masterpiece Frankenstein was created from the brilliant mind of Mary Shelley. Released in 1817, this book is filled with mystery and chaos from one man, Victor Frankenstein. Victor creates a monster after indulging himself into the study of science. This monster is too much for Victor, who is the creator of it. The path Victor took to create this monster is full of the need for power and knowledge. Victor has an internal battle with himself in the process of creating the monster.
ReplyDeleteVictor easily became obsessed with discovering the mysteries of the human body. This obsession caused him to forget his health and social life. This action alludes at how people can become too caught up in something, and the result can be unhealthy. Victor also removed himself from his family which hurts his family. He has to be “caught up”on his own family’s situation at home. His relationship with Elizabeth and his other siblings is greatly affected. He used to be close with his siblings, yet now, he does not even speak to them. This disconnection is, in a way, making Victor less human. He is going through his studies motion by motion wit his only thought on his obsession. The obsession makes Victor hungry for the power and knowledge of life. He is craving for the ability to understand how life can be made, which results in him making a monster. This monster can represent Victor’s inside. He is frightened by the aight and noises of the monster, and abandons his creation. This represents how Victor’s emotions and feelings are pushed to the side and not dealt with properly. Victor scares himself with the monster he created. He accomplished his task and does not like the end result. The disconnections and the creation of the monster reflect how Victor became too obsessed and unaware of the path he went down.
Power and knowledge is not all it seems to be. It makes the person feel accomplished in the moment, but it leaves an everlasting effect on relationships and emotions. Victor became too involved, and Mary Shelley beautifully shows this in the book. Without self-control and awareness of one’s life, people can have internal conflicts without realizing it until the damage is done.
Your introduction restated that Frankenstein created the monster in four of six sentences. It felt extremely redundant. Other than that, it was good.
DeleteMaddie, I think you made some really good points. You incorporated a lot of good information for man versus himself. Great job!
DeleteIn 1817, Mary Shelley wrote a marvelous novel called “Frankenstein.” Mary Shelley wrote this book in order to explain different opinions about the creation of life. Life was created by a scientist who was curious about the anatomy of human creation. Since Frankenstein was the creator of a new “creature,” this novel is mostly man vs. nature.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Frankenstein is pretty much a genius, he is still faced with daily struggles just like everyone else in the world. It is man vs. nature because Frankenstein was trying to act like he was God since he was trying to create a human. We all know that only God can create a healthy and happy person. Since Frankenstein is not God, he could not successfully create someone. Frankenstein said, “Scientists penetrate into the recess of nature and show how she works in her hiding-places. They ascend into the heavens; they have discovered how blood circulates, and the nature of the air we breathe. They have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of heaven, mimic the earthquake, and even mock the invisible world with its own shadows.” This quote is a perfect example of how this novel is man vs. nature because how the body works falls under the category or nature because technically a whole body should not be able to be made, but not in this instance. Throughout the book, Frankenstein is always trying to escape seeing his friends and family which causes him to fall into nature. He enjoyed the thought of being alone and adventuring by himself. Although being alone in the mountains was a great way to escape reality, he needed to realize his mistake that he made — trying to create a person. When his creation starts to kill people he loved, he believed everything was his fault.
It is truly difficult to argue if this novel is man vs. nature, man vs. self, or man vs. society because everyone has a different view point of this story. However, I truly believe this is an example of man vs. nature because of all of the incidents that happen throughout the story. What Frankenstein is trying to do is something that really should not be able to be done. Even though organs and other body parts can be created today, nobody should be able to create a full body because that is not our job to fully design and create another life.
Mrs. Messineo spoke to us about showing we know logos, pathos, and ethos without stating them. Personally, I think this is what should’ve been done with the prompt (man vs. nature). I felt like you were trying to solidify your point by just bringing it up repeatedly.
DeleteEmma does bring a good point up about introducing logos, pathos, and ethos. The argument also brought up some great points. I think you did a great job!
DeleteConformity seems to always be relevant in society. Whether it is the presence or lack of it, individuality scares people. While not all individuality is a positive thing, the concept should not be looked down upon. In Frankenstein, this concept is quite prevalent. Perhaps it is because author Mary Shelley faced obstacles such as these in her own life.
ReplyDeleteVictor Frankenstein had quite the ideal childhood. He loved his family, his friends, and his studies. However, this all took place in somewhat of a bubble. His studies had no major impact on those around him, so they felt no need to bother him with the reality that he was wrong. Attending College, his professor pegs him as a fool for believing in something that had already been refuted. This lack of acceptance makes Victor feel as though he has wasted his time on something that was deemed inadequate. He becomes a shell of himself; he becomes too afraid of the world to even live in it.
When Frankenstein creates his monster, he has unrealistic expectations for it. He completely disregards the essence of humanity. People are not shaped by their anatomy, so to speak. Society and the environment in which the grow affect their entire existence. Victor had an entire life full of situation that taught him to learn, live, and love. He is the product of his experiences. Had he never been exposed to such things, he would have nothing to base his thoughts, feelings, and actions on. When he creates his monster, Victor expects him to be fully functional and societally centered. The monster, however, has never been taught any of this information. It has no ideals. It has no morals. It has no emotion. While it may have physical life, it has had no direction from its creator on what is right and wrong. How can it be blamed for nonconformity when it does not even know what society is?
Frankenstein’s monster is completely set up to be hated by society. Seclusion and disownment were the only experiences that he ever came to know. Without proper direction, who is to say that any person might not end up like this?
Mary Shelley created one of the greatest fictional works in Frankenstein by adding countless underlying meanings to it. This book is truly a masterpiece because it can be perceived in so many different ways. Shelley writes about a man named Victor Frankenstein who is knowledge and power hungry. He searches for the “elixir” of life through countless studies through many different people, and in the end he realizes how unimportant that is. Throughout the novel, many people he encounters are constantly criticizing who he studies from, influencing him on who to study, and he encounters many sorrows from losing people around him. This makes the story truly a man vs. society situation.
ReplyDeleteVictor first studies from two natural philosophers named Cornelius Agrippa and Paracelsu. Back in his home country Geneva, these are the only scientists or philosophers he knew of. Once he went to Ingolstadt to study, his professors M. Krempe and Waldman practically made fun of who he studied. M. Krempe was the main source of criticism and said it was far too outdated. He suggested the newer and more modern science, which only furthered Victor’s frustration and his hunger for power and knowledge. M. Krempe’s criticism gave him more of a motive to create the monster. Waldman was more accepting of Victor. He took him in as his apprentice and gave him more of the knowledge he needed to complete his task. If it weren’t for the influences of these two men, Victor may have never reached his full potential and the monster could have been avoided all together.
These two men lead to a clash between the modern scientists of society and Victor himself. He believed that these modern scientists were foolish in their findings and were constantly searching for the wrong things. Victor had his mind set on one task and his dislike for modern scientists made him want to complete his task even more. Victor wanted to prove that he was more powerful and intelligent than these men or women. He wanted to be the greatest of them all. This societal conflict between scientists and Victor was a significant part of his ultimate downfall.
One last example is all of the sorrow Victor went through within his society. He had to leave his family, who ultimately helps keep him sane. His mother died, who was one of the most important people in his life. His mother dying made him want to find out where life came from and how to stop people from dying. This was his ultimate motive to go out and create the elixir of life. Losing people closest to him put a permanent hurt into his own mind.
Victor had many problems with the people around him. They frustrated him and only made his hunger for power stronger. This frustration lead to an obsession to become the best scientist there ever was, even greater than God although impossible. All of these people greatly impacted Victor’s mental health and pushed him ultimately down the wrong path.
You did a great job stating your view and then thoroughly explaining. Also, i liked how you chose the standpoint of man vs. society because I did not see it that way.
Delete