Hotchkiss-N, Franken Post 3

Are humans inherently good or evil? What does Shelley think? What do you think?

It seems that Shelley believes that, like nature vs. nurture, humans exhibit inherent qualities of both good and evil. The first difficulty in defining/answering this question is the nature of what "good" or "bad" -ness is. Is it necessarily evil of Victor to reanimate the nonexistent? In scientific consideration, this could be seen as completely unethical or completely innovative. Is it good or bad from a moral standpoint? It is the relative nature of these questions that makes them difficult to define. Also, the fact that the monster isn't human makes it even more convoluted.

The primary example that can be used in answering this is Victor, who grows more and more haggard as the novel progresses and more of his loved ones die/are killed. However, through all of his hardships, he still manages to have his story come full circle for the better--he warns another wide-eyed adventurous explorer about the mire ahead if he should seek to dissect nature. If he were completely bad, he would not have even bothered. "'Shall I, in cold blood, set loose upon the earth a daemon, whose delight is in death and wretchedness?" (122). Victor says this to the monster, implying his bleak outlook that has  developed. He cannot assume the second monster's evilness, and doesn't recognize the "feelings of affection" that the monster had at his creation. He fears automatic evil in the she daemon's mechanism, which is an understandable but not necessarily plausible assumption. Throughout the novel, there are many examples of the inherent goodness and badness in characters. Elizabeth seems to be completely good; and she makes me think that Shelley may veer, in her philosophy, towards the "inherently good" side of the scale, but she definitely weighs the option in her mind because her characters are, realistically, not inclined towards 100% goodness, as seen with Victor's fervent action to create life--which could be interpreted as "bad" or naive.

My personal thoughts on the issue: babies are unadulterated by corruption because they are babies. But that doesn't mean that they will be good forever. They may start exhibiting "bad" behaviors at a very young age. I would say that the nature vs nurture question is integral to this one; it is probably poor nurturing that results in more badness. Even the most good of all people is not good--people mess up and they make mistakes. But I also believe that most people are inclined towards good--people, even if they like to ignore it, are intrinsically pleased and satisfied when they help someone genuinely. People, even the most gloomy of them, would much rather receive a compliment than a hateful comment. We are programmed for positivity because it makes us happier, more productive, and generally more content with our current surrounding. Some people may have many patterns that could be considered evil but nevertheless exhibit goodness in some other aspect of life and that's why I don't think anyone is ever completely bad or completely good.

Are Humans Inherently Good or Evil?

In the end of Frankenstein, one can safely say that the two main characters -Victor Frankenstein and the monster- are well and truly evil. The monster has killed every single person close to Frankenstein in response to the loathing and lack of care Victor has shown him, and Victor's life has deteriorated to the point where his only goal is to exact revenge on the monster who ruined his life. Despite the fact that Mary Shelley's two main characters end up evil, she is not saying that they, and as an extension human beings in general, are inherently evil. But she is also not saying that humans are inherently good. Rather, Shelley's message is that human nature is not universal; it varies from person to person. From the very start of the book it is clear that Victor Frankenstein is inherently evil. As a young boy, Victor became obsessed with the works of famous alchemists and took it upon himself to learn all their teachings. "I entered with the greatest diligence into the search of the philosopher's stone and the elixir of life; but the latter soon obtained my undivided attention...what glory would attend the discovery if I could banish disease from the human frame and render man invulnerable to any but a violent death!" (p21) Despite being thirteen and untouched by any outside influence other than a few books, Victor was already obsessed with personal achievement and glory. At the age of seventeen and recently enrolled in the university at Ingolstadt, Victor's obsession with alchemy was dismissed as a waste of time by the natural philosophy professor, M. Krempe. However, Krempe's words were scoffed at. "I had a contempt for the uses of modern natural philosophy. It was very different, when the masters of the science sought immortality and power; such views, although futile, were grand..." (p26) Here again we see a young, egotistic Victor who is obsessed with fame and power. Why would he bother with useful modern sciences that only offer limited greatness, when he could be spending his time on the impractical but potentially glorious and fame-bringing field of alchemy? A final example of Victor's inherent evilness before the creation of the monster (that way there can be no argument that Victor's actions were influenced by his creation) occurred over the two year period where he was intently studying at Ingolstadt. Completely disregarding the recent death of his mother, his bride-to-be Elizabeth and his father and the rest of his family, Victor consciously makes the the decision to stop contacting them in favor of focusing on his work. This demonstrates how selfish he truly is; he is so concerned with achieving something that will bring him recognition that he is willing to sacrifice his family for it. In stark contrast to Victor, the monster stands out as an inherently good and kind-hearted creature. Immediately after his "birth," the monster experiences his first taste of human hatred from, of all people, the very man who created him. Fleeing from Victor's apartment, the monster, alone and confused, began to roam the country side. Each time he encountered humans he inspired disgust,  was yelled at, ran away from, or pelted with rocks until he was forced to flee. Despite all this, however, the monster did not once retaliate. Eventually finding his way into a hovel next to a cottage, the monster was finally able to observe the ways of humans in peace. "Several times the [young cottagers] placed food before the old man when they reserved none for themselves...this trait of kindness moved me sensibly. I had been accustomed, during the night, to steal a part of their store for my own consumption;but when I found that in doing this I inflicted pain on the cottagers, I abstained..." (p78) While before he had stolen food because he didn't know better, the monster now realized that it was causing others pain and immediately began to stop, making life more difficult for himself in the process. After living in the hovel for a while, the monster finally worked up the courage to enter the cottage in hopes of being accepted despite his appearance. He was met with scorn by the cottagers he had come to idolize, destroying his confidence and further reinforcing that he shouldn't trust humans. But did he strike back? No. In fact, after fleeing the cottage, the monster immediately proceeded to rescue a girl from drowning in the river. He was rewarded by being shot. At this point, the monster had understandably lost all of his faith in humanity, and was rightfully furious at his creator for granting him existence only to release him into a cruel world. This is the point when the monster began killing and carrying out horrible deeds, but the pain Victor had caused him warranted this kind of response from the monster. Despite his many gifts, Victor Frankenstein was an inherently evil man who's life experiences caused him to descend even further into wickedness. On the other hand, the monster, with all his imperfections, was blessed with a good soul, only to have it turned evil by the cruelty he experienced in his lifetime. These two extremely complex characters serve the purpose of showing that every individual is created with a separate and unique nature.

A Theme Characterized by Juxtaposition and Parallels

Throughout her novel, Frankenstein, Mary Shelley uses juxtaposition and parallels to emphasize certain important events and ideas. Captain Robert Walton's search for friendship in the barren arctic region mirrors the monster's quest for companionship in the cold and unwelcoming world.  In the opening chapters, Victor's upbringing is described as being near-perfect: "No human being could have passed a happier childhood than myself. My parents were possessed by the very spirit of kindness and indulgence. We felt that they were not the tyrants to rule our lot according to their caprice, but the agents and creators of all the many delights which we enjoyed." (p19) During the time his youth is being described one can't help but think that it serves the purpose of foreshadowing a vastly different and more depressing quality of life later on for Victor (it does). While these strategies are employed heavily in the early portion of the book, Shelley continually uses them throughout her novel. As the monster watches Agatha and Felix interact lovingly with the old and blind De Lacey, he becomes more and more aware of the lack of love and companionship in his own life. "Nothing could exceed the love and respect which the younger cottagers exhibited towards their venerable companion. They performed towards him every little office of affection and duty with gentleness; and he rewarded them by his benevolent smiles." (p77) Shelley's description of the caring actions of the villagers makes it easy for the reader to realize the lack thereof in the monster's life. Another major juxtaposition that occurs with the villagers is the difference between the relationships of Felix and Safie and Frankenstein and the monster. After observing the love and care exchanged between the couple, the monster remarks that, "benevolence and generosity were ever present before me, inciting within me a desire to become an actor in the busy scene where so many admirable qualities were called forth and displayed." (p90) It is clear from this passage that the monster yearns for a relationship like the one Felix and Safie have, but it is never to be. While Felix does everything in his power  to be with his beloved Safie, Frankenstein is disgusted with the monster and eventually, although he fails, does everything in his power to destroy him. An important parallel that takes place later on in the book is the one between Victor Frankenstein and Henry Clerval. As Henry gets older, he begins to resemble more and more what Victor was like before the creation of the monster (strongly connected with nature, a deep love of science). However, as Victor ages and becomes increasingly consumed by the monster's existence and actions he loses his earlier passions and becomes a miserable shadow of his former self. The parallel between the older Henry and younger Victor serve to show just how much Victor has changed since the creation of the monster.  Shelley's novel is so heavily characterized by its use of juxtapositions and parallels that the theme of the book can be considered one of opposites and similarities. The majority of the goals of the novel are accomplished through its use contrasting or correlating stories, people, relationships and so on.

Passive Women in Frankenstein

The Theme of Passive Women in Frankenstein

Frankenstein is usually thought of as one of the classic horror stories and nothing else. However, Mary Shelley's inaugural work is much more than that. Shelley explores a variety of themes in her novel, one of the most interesting being the role of women. In Frankenstein, Shelley consistently portrays her female characters as passive and being submissive to her more-powerfully portrayed men. This trend begins with Victor's cousin and future wife, Elizabeth, writing to him when he is away at school in Ingolstadt. Victor has been away for years, and his obsession with his studies and his desire to create life have caused him to forget about Elizabeth back in Geneva. Despite the fact that he has not written to her and that he has barely even thought of her, it is easy to see from her letter that Elizabeth is still extremely dedicated to Victor. "Get well - and return to us. You will find a happy, cheerful home, and friends who love you dearly... Write, dearest Victor - one line - one word will be a blessing to us."(p40) This letter strongly reinforces the stereotype of the dutiful woman, who patiently and unquestioningly waits at home for her man's return. Shelley further strengthens her theme of passive women with the trial of Justine Moritz. After being falsely accused of the murder of Victor's brother, William, Justine does nothing to defend herself. In fact, she is so passive that she confesses to a crime that she did not commit in hopes that God will have mercy on her. "I did confess; but I confessed a lie. I confessed, that I might obtain absolution; but now that falsehood lies heavier at my heart than all my other sins." (p58) Even further, she is such a weak character that she even feels bad about falsely confessing to the crime because it was telling a lie. While Elizabeth and Justine both demonstrate feminine passivity and weakness, Victor's actions when creating the female monster are the strongest anti-female sentiment in the novel. After being forced to construct a female monster, Victor realizes that he cannot go through with the act and destroys the body before it is brought to life. "...the creature who already lived loathed his own deformity, and might he not conceive a greater abhorrence for it when it came before his eyes in the female form? She also might turn with disgust from him to the superior beauty of man... one of the first results of those sympathies for which the daemon had thirsted would be children, and a race of devils would be propagated upon the earth..." (p121) In this passage Victor is anticipating that the female monster will be judgmental and unpredictable, wreaking even more havoc than her male counterpart due to a lustful desire for more attractive human males. It is also clear that Victor interprets the unborn female monster as even more of a danger than the male monster due to her distinctly feminine childbearing ability. Shelley's novel, while groundbreaking in many ways, is very traditional when it comes to the way it portrays gender roles. Written in 1818, it strongly reflects the previously popularly belief that females were inferior and should be submissive to males.

Hotchkiss-Needleman Frankenblog 2: Nature V. Nurture

It appears that Shelley sees validity in the reality that both nature and nurture work in their own overlapping contexts to contribute to the development of a person/monster. In the earlier part of the novel, Victor talks about his wonderful childhood in Geneva, and this invokes the idea that it may be nurture. She makes little reference to nature at first, but nature's role is first shown when Frankenstein goes off to live by himself for the first time at the university. Before this his life had been promising, "remarkably secluded and domestic" (25). He goes to the university where he can finally commence the acquisition of knowledge of his personal interests. "I ardently desired the acquisition of knowledge, I had often, when at home, thought it hard to remain during my youth cooped up in one place, and had longed to enter the world, and take my station among other human beings." (25) His environment as a child had "given [him] invisible repugnance to new countenances" (25), making that the primary way that nature affects him (the nature being his domestic relatively low-stress wealthy life). As soon as he begins his work to recreate life, and delves into the philosophies of science and galvanism, Shelley illustrates nature starting to take hold of his development. By becoming obsessed with galvanism, he risks his mental well-being by devoting his entire being to his desire, his quest -- and this destroys him. "One secret which I alone possessed was the hope to which I had dedicated myself; and the moon gazed on my midnight labors, while, with unrelaxed and breathless eagerness, I pursued nature to her hiding places." (33) He has been partially directed by the two professors, but at his own propulsion, meaning that this is the first time when his nature really begins to take ahold on his development. The environment he builds for himself- his laboratory, charnel houses, his overly devoted and zealous mind, and his classes- focus almost entirely  on the defiance of nature but do not undermine the "nature" portion of the argument because they come full circle as soon as he views his creation with disgust, and this, too affects him. "My limbs tremble now, and my eyes swim with the remembrance; but then a resistless, and almost frantic impulse, urged me forward; I seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit. It was indeed but a passing trance, that only made me feel with renewed acuteness so soon as, the unnatural stimulus ceasing to operate I had returned to my old habits. I collected bones from charnel houses…" (33) In this passage, his attitude and hindsight of his frenzied mind state suggests that Shelley intended for the reader to understand that this is a turning point when Victor's nourishment of his own egotistical plot takes over and degrades his sense of morality, thereby causing pain for both him and his creature. Now, let us compare it with Part 2 in order to understand Shelley's further commentary on the subject.

The creature, it can be safely said, is the product of nature and not nurture. There is no nurturing for the creature besides hate, scorn, disgust, horror, misery and banishment by a disgusted and shameful creator: Victor. In wake of these feelings he leaves Victor: not human by nature, but affected and developed through nature's affect. The first effects are when he is in the forest, he learns how fire functions, how cold and hunger feel and how to deal with those problems; about shelter, and relative levels of comfort, and fire's innate ability to provide heat, light, and food. These are all distinguished by the monster's own efforts and especially necessity. The monster receives no guidance, no affection, and must reconstruct reality based on his experience. He watches the De Lacey family with extreme vigilance, curiosity, and develops a strong affinity for them, referring them to him as his "friends" and "protectors" even though they do not know of him and are disgusted by him eventually. He learns to read, learns of geopolitical realities and the darkness of man by watching this family. He learns French. He learns all about Safie's father and the situation surrounding the family that made them poor. He explores dimensions of humans without actually interacting with them. Eventually, he can read the notebook in the lab coat pocket and learns of his creation -- and develops a hatred towards his creator. Shelley makes the point that no one can be happy or healthy without nurture as well as nature. Because the creature cannot sympathize with other humans and is alone and doesn't have anyone who put love or time or effort into him, he sees disproportionately the evil ways of men (because of how they see/treat him) and it embitters him. Thus, this is nature's effect at work. Nature without nurture is harsh, cold, and has a desolate effect on the mind. and impossible for a healthy person.

The proof is found, as already paraphrased, in the year he spends "with" the De Laceys and also experiencing human-ness.. A more specific piece of evidence is his reaction to the books he reads: Paradis Lost, Plutarch's Lives, and Sorrows of Werter.. "I can hardly describe to you the effect of these books. " (91) "Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition; for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me." (92). At one point, he does say that these books were taken literally when he first read them. Without anyone to help him interpret the themes that "surpassed my understanding." He "inclined towards the opinions of the hero, whose extinction I wept, without precisely understanding it." The books provoke many questions about his origins, problems inevitably solved by humans with loving parents. Thus I assert again: Nature without nurture is harsh, cold, experience-based; it has a desolate and devastating effect on the mind, and doesn't produce a healthy person. Nurture without too much nature (as in Frankenstein's case) may result in an equally devastating effect if the person is unprepared for storms when they cannot be nurtured anymore, and do something like distance themselves from nature and try to recreate life.

See Frankenstein #3

This book tells us that humans are inherently good, despite many of their actions.This is true from the beginning, when Frankenstein first creates the monster. He created the monster only to push the limits of science, not thinking at all what would come of it. His intentions were good. After creating the monster, he spent the rest of the book trying to fix what he had began. After each disaster, Frankenstein looks increasingly evil but his actions are just reactions to the many deaths in his family and his guilt that builds up. This does not mean that he is evil, though. An evil person would not feel guilty after going through what Victor had, and that was not the case. After losing Henry, Elizabeth, and his father, Frankenstein is at his lowest point. He vows to avenge his family's deaths: "..I will exert myself; and if it is in my power to seize the monster, be assured that he shall suffer punishment proportionate to his crimes"(148). This destructive mood is a result of his extreme guilt and even though he is consumed with hate for the monster, it doesn't define him. It doesn't make him inherently evil.
I agree with Shelly for the most part. There are exceptions to every rule, but generally, humans are inherently good. Often we act poorly in response to something and appear evil. Other times we look evil based on our beliefs. I believe that in each individual's mind, they believe they are doing the right thing, while to someone else that good thing could look awful. It is rare to find someone whose every intention is to destroy and cause pain. Even from the 1800s, I think Shelley had the right idea about humans.

Thompson #3

 A person’s attitude is generally not changed just by itself but is usually a direct result of the actions of others and Mary Shelley is able to aptly demonstrate this in her 19^th century horror novel Frankenstein. I initially began reading this book with the automatic assumption that the “monster” was evil mostly due to the fact that Frankenstein’s monster has been pop culture symbol of freaks and all things scary ever since I can remember. But upon further reading I realized it was only the perception of the monster that made it metamorphisize into a creature whose mission of revenge against the one who created him quickly turns into one of impotent envy and bitter indignation filled me with an insatiable thirst for vengeance." (pg. 164). On its own the monster had been good hearted and kind creature, because it hadn’t been taught any different. But are humans, or in this case monsters, inherently good or inherently evil? Humans as a natural state are individually hardwired differently. Due to this observation this question is impossible to answer with a simple yes or no. When a person is born they can be taught to be good and kind and wholesome but of they do not posses those qualities in their heart then its useless trying to change a person who is designed for an attitude which is less than positive. Yet some, who are born good, are pushed to the evil side through the bitter action of others, much like Frankenstein on his myriad of negative encounters with the local villagers. Initially he approached the people he met with kindness and love but after a few too many negative experiences he became both wary and suspicious of the society in which he was placed. His attitude violently changed and “Evil thenceforth became my good” (164). This way of changing the inherent nature of others is a price that many people seem to pay. Whether its good innocent children turned bad through bullying or a nice monster turned vicious killer through the hurtful actions of other, much of the time the good who are pushed, end up going bad.

Goelz Post #3

Although the tragic ending of this story occurs due to the malevolent and terrible behavior of the characters, it seems that Shelley's implications go much deeper than labeling a human as inherently evil. Despite the characters' horrible actions, they did begin as curious, intellectual beings that sought a pure and productive education. All the murders and lies were external events that happened because of a shift in human nature. Shelley's point is that humans are born inherently good, but through an entirely independent circumstance they can turn sour. Both Frankenstein and his monster start out as innocently inquisitive characters; Frankenstein was in pursuit of achievement in the sciences and the monster was in pursuit of intelligence about the greater world. The monster was corrupted by the blind cruelty and judgment that the humans treated him with. If his creator and those around him had accepted him from the get go, he would have remained a curious, harmless creature that only wished to learn. If they had stopped and listened to him, they would have found that he was an eloquent, well-spoken, articulate being. Frankenstein started out similarly, and there is no clear explanation as to why he rejected his creation in such a terrible way, but once they were slight enemies, it went downhill. When the monster started killing people he loved, Frankenstein began to turn bad. In both situations, the characters become evil due to external occurrences that weren’t predetermined physiological attributes. At the end of the book, the monster says, “I have murdered the lovely and the helpless; I have strangled the innocent as they slept, and grasped to death his throat who never injured me or any other living thing. I have devoted my creator, the select specimen of all that is worthy of love and admiration among men, to misery; I have pursued him even to that irremediable ruin. There he lies, white and cold in death. You hate me; but your abhorrence cannot equal that which I regard myself. I look on the hands which executed the deed; I think on the heart in which the imagination of it was conceived, and long for the moment when these hands will meet my eyes, when that imagination will haunt my thoughts no more (pg. 165)”. This quote expresses that the monster has deep emotions such as sympathy and regret. Although he has committed terrible crimes, he feels remorse and sorrow, for it was not in his default setting to be a murderer. He also says, “Once I falsely hoped to meet with beings who, pardoning my outward form, would love me for the excellent qualities which I was capable of unfolding. I was nourished with high thoughts of honour and devotion. But now crime has degraded me beneath the meanest animal (pg. 165)”. The characters were inherently good, but through dire circumstances they have lost this innocence.

 I loosely agree with this theory, for a child begins its life as a purely innocent creature. Although they hold selfish qualities, they are simplistic and inherently good. They intrinsically care about the truth and beauty in the world, for they don’t understand the corrupt nature of adults. As they grow and develop, other factors enter their minds that distract them from being good humans. They have to make money, provide for themselves, become avid consumers, and succeed in life. A common root of these achievements is corrupt behavior, since they have to climb their way to the top. Like many students who posted before me, however, I believe that the world is not entirely black and white. Especially nowadays with all the conflicting views and opinions, it is hard to label someone as “good” or “bad”. However, “good” behavior is much more common in young children and “bad” behavior is much more common in adults. Coincidence? I think not. 

Christie #3

A persistent theme in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is the idea of nature vs. nurture and the importance of upbringing on human character development. In the novel, Shelley doesn't seem to place much importance on our inherent nature but rather the path we take and the degree to which we are corrupted by knowledge. That being said, the story implies that human nature is inherently neither good nor evil, that in fact we are defined by nurture rather than nature and that the nurture of human society can germinate and grow evil from innocence.
To answer the question of inherent human goodness or evil is to give a gross oversimplification in regard to a novel as rife with character development as Frankenstein. If anything, the book is a discussion of the ways in which we transform and react to our surroundings and desires. Frankenstein, driven by an insatiable intellectual curiosity, shifts fluidly throughout the story from 'good' to 'evil' and various states in between. As the monster observes the world and tries to develop his identity and place of belonging, he muses "Was man, indeed, at once so powerful, so virtuous, and magnificent, yet so vicious and base? He appeared at one time a mere scion of the evil principle, and at another as all that can be conceived of noble and godlike" (80). Shelley seems to express her own perception of human nature as fluid and powerful, capable of doing both immense wrong and right, through the monster's innocence and subsequent loss thereof.
Shelley's expressed views are mirrored by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola in his "Oration on the Dignity of Man," (1486), often known as the Manifesto of the Renaissance. A famous quote from the oration, translated into English, reads "All other things have a limited and fixed nature prescribed and bounded by our laws. You [man], with no limit or no bound, may choose for yourself the limits and bounds of your nature." Although unlike Shelley, Mirandola, as a Renaissance thinker, endorses and advocates for the acquisition of knowledge, he seems to share her beliefs on the mutability and flexibility of human character.
I agree with Shelley and Mirandola; I don't believe humans are inherently good nor evil. We are like our embryonic stem cells, capable of becoming anything and everything, and as we grow the cells begin to specialize and differentiate in response environmental stimuli. Our experiences (nurture) 'differentiate' aspects of our characters into certain personality traits, and how we choose to express these traits is reflected only in our actions, which don't necessarily reflect a person's true character. Therefore, while actions can be firmly good and evil, character is not, and human nature is a vague term defined by the society and experiences of an individual or groups of humans, not something programmed in our genes or biological natures.

Karlenzig post 3

In the final chapters of Frankenstein we learn what the author Mary Shelly truly thinks about humanity; humans are inheritly evil. Throughout the conclusion of the book it becomes apparent that Shelly is trying to point out similarities between the monster and Victor. Victor has become the monster who he once created; devestated by loniliness and with only one purpose in life, to destroy the being that has caused him this pain. “I, like the arch fiend, bore a hell within me.” This is how the monster responds after being cast away from the village he tried to enter. "and carried about with me my eternal hell.” As we see Victor become more like the monster, he starts emulating the monster own thoughts. Victor is evil on three accounts: he created the wretched monster, he refused to teach and care for his creation, and he becomes as treacherous as the monster himself. 

Human beings are born neither good or bad. There is no such thing as a baby that is inheritly evil. Even Hitler was an innocent baby. Humans are affected by the environment in which they grow up in, the people they surround themselves with and the lifestyle they choose. Often what creates an evil person is from neglection or abuse in their childhood. The monster suffered from the former, an the result was hideous. 

Knowles Frankenstein #3

Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, demonstrates that although people are capable of acting in cruel ways, humans are inherently good.  In the novel, none of the characters are truly evil, but they do act in horrific ways towards each other, when they are provoked by some action of another character.  Early in the novel, Frankenstein is full of curiosity, passion for his studies, and interest in the world.  When his monster comes into being, the creature innocently begins to learn the ways of the world, discovering and observing kindness and generosity.  As the story progresses, Frankenstein is weighed down by the worry of what he has let lose into the world, and the consequences that it will have.  With each murder and disaster that the monster brings about, Frankenstein is brought further and further away from his “goodness”.   He acts in ways that may be seen as evil, but he does not possess inherent evilness.  His motives, feelings, and goals are ever changing, and are never truly evil.  When Frankenstein is floating out at sea in his boat after having dropped the remains of his female monster into the ocean, he finally sees land, and this prompts him to comment on human emotions.  He says, “how mutable are our feelings…” (126).  Mary Shelley is elaborating on the fact that humans are not inherently evil; that humans change.  It could also be understood from this statement that humans are not inherently good either, but it seems that Mary Shelley is arguing that humans are born good, and are only led to evil actions when evil is done to them.  Throughout the novel, Shelley gives examples of the inherent goodness of humans.  When Frankenstein comes ashore in Ireland, he explains that “Mr Kirwin had shown me extreme kindness” (131), even when other people were accusing Frankenstein of a murder.  In this example, Mr Kirwin has experienced no evil from Frankenstein, giving him no reason to be wicked, and so he exhibits inherent goodness.  On the other hand, when Shelley’s characters commit atrocities, they are provoked by something, whether it is another character’s actions or the emotions that these actions cause.  As he goes after the Monster, Frankenstein states that, “I devote myself, either in my life or death, to his destruction” (148).  This may seem to be an evil statement, but it does not come from inherent evil.  Instead, Frankenstein explains that he is pushed to this state because of “grief”, “rage”, and “despair” (150).  He also explains that “My rage and vengeance...overwhelmed every other feeling” (153).  The strong feelings of Shelley’s characters overpower some of their rational thought, and allow them to act in destructive ways.  After suffering for many years without a companion, Frankenstein’s monster killed Elizabeth (just after Frankenstein had married her).  Later the monster explains that “Evil thenceforth became my good” (164).  In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley is not ignoring the fact that humans can be evil.  Although the monster is not really human, he seems to represent humanity in the story, and Shelley clearly shows that the daemon was once good, but was eventually led to act in evil, malicious ways because of the suffering he himself was forced to endure, and his strong desires that were never fulfilled.

Humans are not inherently evil.  Generally, humans are inherently good.  There is, of course, a spectrum of different types of people, most of whom cannot be characterized so easily into one of those two descriptions, who fall somewhere in the middle.  No humans are exactly the same, and because of innumerable different factors, individual human develop to fall more to one end of the spectrum than the other.  That being said, it seems very rare that someone is inherently evil.  There are almost always times when someone does something kind, generous, or simply good.

Supawit #3

 Shelly believes in the idea that humans are inherently good, but are influenced by their surroundings. This concept is represented by the monster, who was born inherently good, but became corrupt because of the judgmental society he lived in. He never intended to harm anyone until he was told of how he was made and why Victor left him. The monster's morbid appearance was criticized by humans because their society unintentionally influenced them to judge people based on looks. After Victor destroyed the female monster that was nearly finished, the monster cries, "find a wife for his bosom, and each mast have his mate and I be alone? I had feelings of affection, and the were requited by detestation and scorn. Man! you may hate; but beware! your hours will pass in dread and misery.." (122). Though the Monster becomes violent and dangerous, he still feels glimpses of guilt and love that come as a result of his inherently good nature. Victor feels just as guilty and responsible for his creation, which is why he nearly creates this female figure. However, destroying the monster's potential mate right before his eyes brings their relationship to a dreadful point of no return. When Monster hysterically rants to Winston, he states, "But it is even so; the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil. Yet even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation; I am alone" (165). This extremely powerful quote encompasses both his previous self with his present feelings of solitude and agony. To destroy the only person that could potentially give the monster any sort of happiness gave him, "an insatiable thirst for vengeance"(164). The Monster wanted to kill nearly everything his creator loved so Victor would be consumed by hatred just as he was.  This religious reference is to emphasize that the monster is not human nor demon, and that even in hell there is company that he still does not have. Victor's death leaves him completely alone in the world and has no one to live for after this pursuit is finished.

I do not think that humans are purely good nor evil. This quote by Wilkie Collins really stood out to me, “The best men are not consistent in good-- why should the worst men be consistent in evil". Everyone has the potential to do harm, just as everyone has the potential to do good as well. It is all about lifestyle choices; who and what people surround themselves with, and the values they create while doing so. I'd say that people are unpredictable; no one can really decide or assume what choices we make in life as it is in our own duty to do what we think is best. Victor never intended such events to occur when creating the monster, he hoped for new innovations for society and a companion he could call his own. It was the way he went about the situation that turned this whole situation into a disaster as he was responsible in taking care of the monster and teaching him the ways of life.

Yeakle Frankenpost #2

Frankenstein earns its status as a literary classic by Mary Shelley's genius as a cultured writer and ability to interweave universal stories and metaphors into her work. The novel is known for its biblical motifs; the story of Adam's creation, the idea of Eve, Paradise Lost and the story of Satan, and the relationship between the creator and the created.  Shelley also drew on Greek mythology and the story of Prometheus, the titan who created a man out of clay (in the novel Victor Frankenstein explicitly refers to his monster as a creation out of clay) and stole fire to give it to men. However, one of the more subtle stories that Shelley tells through Frankenstein is the evolution of humans.

In the mid section of the book, Victor Frankenstein has reunited with the monster, who articulately recounts his life in the past years that they have been separated. His evolution from an unintelligent, primal being to a literate, profound person is symbolic of the development of the human race. The monster describes discovering fire; "When night came again I found, with pleasure, that the fire gave light as well as heat; and that the discovery of this element was useful to me in my food, for I found some of the offals that the travellers [sic] had left had been roasted, and tasted much more savoury than the berries I gathered from the trees." (p. 72) The monster, with his incoherent grunts and animalistic appearance, greatly resembles a caveman discovering the use of fire for the first time. Just as humans began developing speech, the monster is fascinated by spoken language and spends months learning how to pronounce and understand it. "I found that these people possessed a method of communicating their experience and feelings to one another by articulate sounds. I perceived that the words they spoke sometimes produced pleasure or pain, smiles or sadness, in the minds and countenances of the hearers. This was indeed a godlike science, and I ardently desired to become acquainted with it." (p. 78) Not long after discovering speech, the monster witnesses the cottager Felix reading, and is determined to understand written language as well. Like the ancient cultures that created symbols for language, he describes his observations of writing: "This reading had puzzled me extremely at first...I conjectured, therefore, that he found on the paper signs for speech which he understood, and I ardently longed to comprehend these also..." (p. 79)

After months of observing the cottage family, the monster reaches a level of intelligence at which he faces questions that the earliest philosophers grappled with when pondering the existence of humanity: "What did this mean? Who was I? What was I? Whence did I come? What was my destination? These questions continually recurred, but I was unable to solve them" (p. 92) At this point he has acquired deep thought, completing the symbolic progress of humans, from the earliest cave dwellers to civilizations, that is one of Mary Shelley's many metaphors in Frankenstein.