Archive for August, 2018


As a child, we were all told that Frankenstine was a big green monster who roams around with all the other monsters we were told about.  The one actually called Freankestine was his creator and he was the actual monster for leaving his living creation in his apartment building and letting it roam around. Upon reading Mary Shelly’s novel about Frankenstine I started to notice that he wasn’t what everyone said he would be. In this novel, it really changed my mind on how Frankenstine is view nowadays.

In chapter 12 of Mary Shelly’s novel, the monster shows his caring side which no one ever talks about and shows his feelings to the cottages by getting them firewood as quoted, “I discovered also another means through which I was enabled to assist their labors. I found that the youth spent a great part of each day in collecting wood for the family fire; and, during the night, I often took his tools, the use of which I quickly discovered, and brought home firing sufficient for the consumption of several days” (Shelly 102). When this came up on my reading I was shocked because I didn’t believe how I would not hear anybody talk about anything good about the monster. This is showing how the society is having TV manipulations leave the images they see embedded into their heads and recognizing the truth about things.frankenstein-2

– Marco Hidalgo

Advertisements

Who is the Real Monster?

Considering I’ve only watched the movie Frankenstein once, my knowledge of the Frankenstein myth is limited. However, after reading Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the myth behind it has become apparent to me. The book reveals and contradicts a few myths that the movie illustrates. The first myth, which shocked me the most, no pun intended, was the misconception that Frankenstein was the creatures name. While reading the part of the book where Victor begins to share his story to Walton about how he was interested in the thought “if [he] could banish disease from the human frame, and render man invulnerable to any but a violent death” (p. 47), I began to question whether Victor was the creator of the monster. However, Victor’s last name was not revealed until later on in the story, leaving me shocked when I found out the creatures name actually is not Frankenstein, but instead is the scientists name. This prompted me to question, later on in the book, who really is the “monster” of the story? According to myth, I believe, Frankenstein is also the “monster’s” name, but according to the text, the creature actually has no name, changing the meaning of the story from one about a created monster named Frankenstein to one about the monster being the scientist Victor Frankenstein. Victor Frankenstein is the true monster of the story because he created this creature and abandoned him, leaving the creature vulnerable to become a victim of neglect and abuse from others, leading him down the path of murdering others. Victor even recognizes how he was “seized by remorse and the sense of guilt, such as no language could describe” (p.85) because he was the cause of two deaths, that he knew of, both being very close to his heart and his home. In conclusion, the myth of Frankenstein does not address anything of these issues and details described in the book, for the myths sole purpose seems to be to paint “the monster” as a monster due to his unique looks and unintelligence. However, the creature unintelligence is also a myth that surprised me because it is apparent, according to the creatures diction, that he not only has an extensive vocabulary, but he is very much so in tune with his feelings and expresses his sadness towards the way he has always been treated and what it has lead him to do. If approaching this text according to myth, one would be surprised to then find themselves sympathizing with this “monster” who, according to myth, is painted only as a feeble-minded murderer.

Jaimee Watson

By: Maya Carranza

When hearing the name “Frankenstein” people automatically think of a big, green monster that was created in a lab by a mad scientist. But upon reading Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, that misconception was debunked. In reality, the creature was nameless all throughout the book and the name Frankenstein was the surname of the scientist, Victor Frankenstein.

While reading this book, I realized that the real monster was not the nameless creature but actually Victor Frankenstein. The definition of the word monster is defined as “an inhumanly cruel or wicked person” which is exactly what Frankenstein was. Shelley illustrates the image of the “monster” as a sensitive and emotional creature, who only wants to share his life with another creature like him. On the other hand, the creature’s creator abandons him due to the hideous sight of him. Frankenstein’s selfish actions led him to create life to achieve prominence but did not think about the feelings or wants of his creation. Frankenstein was also cruel to the monster when he told him that he would create a companion for him, giving him false hope. This neglect and mistreatment from the start led him down a wrong path. As a result, it gave people the misconception that the creature was the monster but if Frankenstein would have never deserted his own creation then the creature would have never hurt or killed anyone.

To conclude, while reading Frankenstein my assumptions about the book were questioned. Not only did I learn that the creature’s name is not Frankenstein but that he was not a monster at all but merely the victim of abuse and neglect.

As children, we all thought that we had known who Frankenstein was; the bumbling green monster who could barely string a handful of words together, with its dramatized square-shaped head and metal bolts jutting out from its large neck. We didn’t even consider him as a real living creature, only an object. Not only was it a symbol of fear during Halloween, but has now (more popularly) become a comedic character in children’s shows and movies. One example is from the new popular animated movie, Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation.

After reviewing and reading through Frankenstein, however, we see a whole different world. We’re exposed to a completely different character, one that we aren’t sure how to react to. For one, our so-called monster is actually nameless, put into this world with no identity. Frankenstein, first name being Victor, is actually the creator of the creature we had been stereotyping this entire time. The creature in Shelley’s novel is nothing how we were forced to perceive him to be.

The creature is born into a world where he is instantly hated by his creator, by his presumable “mother”, if we must give Victor the role of this creation’s parent. Victor’s cruelness automatically evicts pity from us to the creature, since we can envision this creation as something completely helpless and in need of direction, which he had been so horribly shoved away from. At this point in time, we begin to humanize him.

We also see that the creature has very human qualities, such as complex emotions and strong intelligence that is unexpected from a science experiment thought to have gone wrong. In the novel, we are the witnesses to the creature’s mental growth as he is quickly shunned by Victor and must discover humanity himself. In fact, to call this creation a monster is completely incorrect, seeing that the reason we fear this creation is because of how human he becomes.

This creature, the one we have humanized, is no monster; the only true beast we witness in this novel is Victor Frankenstein, himself.

-Jody Omlin

Image result for frankenstein incubus

By: Jade Graham

I first saw the painting above in my AP English Literature and Composition class around this time last year. Painted by Henry Fuseli in 1781, The Nightmare was presented to me as a cautionary tale. Shelley herself was influenced by Fuseli’s work used as a symbol for the monster within everyone. The creepy incubus next to the also creepy horse is known as a demon that craves sex and preys on women as a whole. The idea of having Elizabeth as Victor’s wife (or whatever you would like to refer her as) being portrayed as pure, innocent, wearing white, and a nice formal girl: a perfect target for an incubus. Now, not to say that an incubus does appear in Frankenstein however it does connect to Elizabeth’s death. Her similar pose and the monster killing her does relate to The Nightmare.

As for my previous conceptions about Frankenstein and the myths surrounding it, I only knew that the monster was bad and that a crazy guy created him. Only until I read the book in high school did my whole perspective change. The 1931 movie adaption with this clip:

Image result for frankenstein it's alive gif

was wrong. Victor is horrified in the novel and regret sets it. The reader can feel bad for both Victor and the creature, and for good reasons too. But in the end, Frankenstein is many things including a cautionary tale. The idea of greed, desire, fame, all led to destruction, murder, and chaos. Victor chose to dig up body parts and create something that was never meant to be created. He and Walton are examples of not only men but people who cross the line. Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should always do it.

While reading this novel, I have been having the reoccurring question in my head asking “Who’s truly the monster?” For as long as I have known or heard of Frankenstein (which is forever) I have never once considered if his portrayed character was real or not. Now, after reading some of this novel, I am actually upset with myself for not doing any research on him or his portrayed character. Frankenstein is completely misunderstood in both this novel as well as everyday, real life.

A few misconceptions I personally had of Frankenstein are the basic ones everyone knows. One of the most obvious ones is green skin tone on him. In chapter 5, Victor describes his appearance as follows: “His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath…”(Shelley 35). In this description, Shelley proves us wrong with this misconception that he’s green. Other misconceptions include his walk and the pace of it. We have always been told that he walks with his arms up and slowly, but in Shelley mentions in the novel that he’s rather fast, like supernaturally fast.

I have always thought Frankenstein was this monster who was evil, a murderer, and was shunned by the rest of the world based solely on his appearance. Frankenstein is a fictional representation of marginalized groups in society such as those that are disabled and etc. I am truly enjoying this novel, and I cannot wait to see what is to come. frankenstein_by_mindsiphon-d5ufi8g

– Rahma Kohin

 After reading Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, I realized that I’ve been misinformed this whole time! For many years I thought Frankenstein was this horrible green monster who killed village people and had no feelings, but after reading the novel I realized Frankenstein is not the monster but in fact the scientist who created this creature. Mary Shelley’s novel definitely challenged my preconception of the Frankenstein myth and now I acknowledge that a picture does not always depicts the true image of a person and the characteristics of the inner part of a person.

Throughout the novel I was expecting horror and fear, whereas I felt empathy and pity for Frankenstein’s creature since all this creature ever wanted was longing to be accepted somewhere in this world. I felt that it was the other way around instead of the creature being the monster I felt Victor Frankenstein was the monster in this case because he neglected his creation, denied it companionship, and took no responsibility for the chaos his creature unleashed in his town. Often it seemed that the creature was more human than its creator.  I learned that Frankenstein was more than an illiterate monster, but rather an articulate, intelligent human inside a deformed monstrous humanlike creature.

 

Guadalupe Andrade

Upon reading Mary Shelly’s novel Frankenstein, I held various images and judgements about this story. For example, the creature is created by scientist Victor Frankenstein and possesses no exact name, which is a common misconception prior to reading Shelly’s work. Throughout one’s childhood, one is introduced to this creature as a wild, inhumane monster who has no true perspective on the world and lives blindly. This perception is quickly debunked after reading the novel, for Frankenstein’s creation holds his own perspective on what the world around him is, and understands the dangers which lie within societies.

Furthermore, the audience is forced to empathize with this “monster”, who is more human than we would like to admit. The audience comes to the realization that this creature possesses human qualities, which allows the reader to relate to the emotions felt by this creature. Frankenstein’s human-like creation is viewed as a being with no true intuition or internal morals, but we soon realize the creature contains the same characteristics that humans do. Although Frankenstein’s creation has the ability to react and live like a civilized individual, he is soon forced to become involved in dangerous acts of violence and destruction. These actions take place as a result of his daunting physical appearance and abnormal size, which makes the “monster” unable to conform to normal standards of living within a society. Prior to reading Shelly’s work, people are led to believe that the creature is innately cruel and evil, when in reality he is only reacting to the judgements and cruelties of society in the only way he knows how. Without being properly taught the rules and intricacies of civilization, the creature displays his anger and frustration through inhumane acts of physical violence, which ultimately leads to the death of his creator, Frankenstein.

After reading Shelly’s novel, I clearly see the misconceptions about this story and how society has shaped people’s perspectives of the “monster”. The creature is depicted and illustrated in a way that does not accurately represent the intentions and true desire of the creature. Through this novel, I have created my own conclusion about this creature and understand his actions towards the individuals in his life.

-Cathryn Flores

proxy

by: Xóchitl Ortiz

Myth v.s Novel: Frankenstein:


The myth of Frankenstein goes a long way, but since this is based of my prior knowledge, I only know Frankenstein from the Academy Award winning cinematic masterpiece that is the Hotel Transylvania series (well, it should have an academy award by now). I genuinely thought he was the monster, and that he was friendly (which I was right about). In all actuality, I wasn’t aware that everyone else thought he was a scary monster, since my only source is a children’s movie from Sony Animations. Turns out, after all my ignorance and finally reading the novel, I learned Victor Frankenstein made the nameless creature thing and everyone was so mortified by his appearance that their reaction warped the creature’s character.

The novel reminded me of the saying, “beauty is skin-deep” and, after googling it I found that it is a phrase that a pleasing appearance is not a guide to character. Also, I found a song from the Temptations that’s not exactly a lyrical masterpiece, but (in my opinion) is worth listening to.

That short saying (to me) is a nice summary of the novel. The completely insane “Mad Scientist”, Victor Frankenstein, made a beautiful and intellectual creature that was extremely judged by everything it encountered, not by its kindness nor patience towards humans, but by its appearance. When I say the creature was beautiful….I mean it in the most pure, innocent way because the creature, in my perspective, was a kind-hearted soul. Similar to a child, he was inquisitive and fast-adapting. Unfortunately, like all things innocent, the thing was corrupted by the evil in the world. I saw something in the creature, something that was gentle and fragile, but because of his physical manifestation, he was rejected by society.

The novel is written through a series of letters- which gives it a more personal perspective and connection. The tone revealed to me the common theme which questioned, “What is actual beauty?”. Of course, beauty has multiple definitions and layers. You see, 200 years is quite some time. Although the number of the years increased, definitions differed, and time ultimately changed everything, one thing that seemed to not change was the ideology behind “beauty”. Everyone is just as judgmental about what people look like, instead of who they actually are as a human being, today as they were 200 years ago. If I made the rules in life, I would make it so that your physical appearance reflected your innermost self, but I don’t make the rules. Nowadays, exactly how it was back in the “good ol’ days”, beauty gives people benefits and the upper hand in life. This creature lacked the basic European features that was considered beautiful at the time, so people lacked empathy towards it. In my opinion, just because someone is attractive it doesn’t give them the right to be evil. The irony in this is that the creature was a physical representation of what society was: a monster.

The monstrous society made the creature warp his personality to match his appearance, completely warping who it was. In my eyes, the greatest connection is the simple definition of: “beauty is only skin-deep”. It is up the individual to perceive their definitions of what beauty is.

Citations:

https://www.google.com/search?q=beauty+is+only+skin+deep+meaning&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

Frankfrankenstein-2

Before being introduced to Mary Shelley’s novel “Frankenstein” I had, what seems to be very common, misconceptions of the story about the creature. The first and most commonly incorrect held belief has to do with the name mishap that exists about “Frankenstein” itself. Growing up, and up until very recently, I believed that the creature himself was named Frankenstein when in reality, that is not the case. The reality is that the scientist who conjured up the being and brought him to life is named Victor Frankenstein and the creature himself has no given name. I held this idea for a very long time and was only corrected due to the reading of the novel and it came as a big surprise when I learned the truth. I realized that if something so simple and such a small detail could have been greatly altered and lead to such a long-time held misconception, then there was bound to be many other myths I was exposed to about the creature and the story of “Frankenstein”.

Aside from simply misnaming him all of these years, there were greater misconceptions that I held regarding his characteristics. As a child, I was exposed to the representation of the creature that mainstream media portrayed and created. I watched films and cartoons that mislead me to view Victor Frankenstein’s creation in a completely opposite manner than how Mary Shelley had written him to be. Before engaging with the novel, I held the belief that because the creature was created through science and in a laboratory – through the use of electricity – that he was a soulless being with the inability to care for others or have a necessity for love. However, in the novel we learn that Frankenstein’s creation longs to feel accepted, loved, and grows to feel isolated and alone in the world. For someone who always believed that such a creature was incapable of having any feelings, I grew to sympathize with the creature through the novel when I learned that he grows to long for a companion in the world so he would not have to face it alone – a very human being characteristic that I never expected him to posses. Rather than the soulless creature every platform of the media portrayed him as, it was interesting, and rather nice, to find out that in reality Dr. Frankenstein’s creation was capable of feeling and that the audience was capable of sympathizing with the monster.

In addition, I think the greatest long-held misconception I had about the monster was regarding the idea that he was an uneducated and unintelligent creature. However, through Mary Shelley’s novel I learned that he educates himself and soon enough, has vocabulary and knowledge as advanced and eloquent as his genius creator. In all of my years before reading the novel, I always had a misbelief of the creature being unintelligent and incredibly dense. The cartoons I watched always portrayed him as something that was unable to conjure an intelligent thought or even form a coherent sentence and I actually found it somewhat refreshing to find out that was not the case. When I read the novel and discovered that the creature was rather intelligent and had a very sophisticated way of speaking and thinking, it shifted my perspective and point of view that I held about this creature for such a long time before the reading of the novel. This, along with the other debunked myths, made me realize that Mary Shelley designed this creature to have more human qualities than one would imagine. What Shelley’s novel taught me is that the creature is extremely man-like and holds just as much knowledge and potential as an ordinary human being and therefore, is just as dangerous as mankind.

-Beverly Miranda