Tag Archive: science


Distance

When Montag concludes that the creature is “not so much the sign of the proletariat as of its unrepresentability” I believe this section of Montag’s essay means that the creature does not really give sight that it could possibly represent the working class and all its struggles but rather is not really viewed in that point of view. So the creature has the hidden background that it could possibly be the working class but is not viewed as that by the readers which then shows the unrepresentability of the working class in the character of the creature.

However, Montag’s essay was a bit difficult to read but I do see where Montag’s interpretation of the characters in Shelley’s novel comes from. Although, I do feel like there are a lot of key factors to think of when considering the monster as the proletariat. For example, the creature was created by a man of a higher class standing or the creature being incredibly smart by teaching himself. Most, if not, all the working class could not afford education, leading them to become uneducated. Another thing is the word distance and solitude that constantly popped up in Montag’s essay and all that came to my mind was the distance that people place themselves in their status’. Such as the middle-class, the working-class and so forth. Also, the distance that science places people at such as Frankenstein going into solitude or becoming “sick” after his creation. I found it interesting that Montag placed science as its own category rather than connecting it to the middle-class.

By: Carmen Ibarra

 

Advertisements

Warren Montag, author of the essay “The Workshop of Filthy Creatures”, uses this article of writing to pinpoint the social classes, and social injustices, found in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. To start off, Montag first divides the fact that Victor is part of the Bourgeoisie class, and the creation represents the Proletariat class. While reading Montag’s paper, he brings up multiple points based around his thesis. His final words, however, can be left for interpretation by his readers; “… not so much the sign of the Proletariat as of its unrepresentability.” (480)

In my personal opinion, I believe that Montag is correct. In order to help Montag with direct evidence from the novel, might I direct you to chapter 12 of Frankenstein. At this point in the journey, the creature has been studying the cottagers and their ways of survival. The cottagers work everyday, especially Felix, and the creature takes note of this continuously in his part of the story. However, the creature then states to himself, “… but how terrified when I viewed myself in a transparent pool!” While the quote is fleeting, it still holds many points of evidence that are useful for my argument. One, for example, being the plain fact that the creature understands that he is not like the cottagers as far as beauty. This is not the first time that we, the readers, see the creature separate himself from human society, or even the Proletariat class. Just this quote is enough to sustain the theory that the creature merely is not a suitable husk of the Proletariat class in Shelley’s novel, no matter how hard Shelley tries. The creature cannot identify himself with the Proletariat because he does not understand their pains and labors, despite him lending a secretive helping hand.

-Jody Omlin

Sabrina Vazquez

Warren Montag in his essay, “The ‘Workshop of Filthy Creation’: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein”, states that Mary Shelly, in her novel; utilizes Frankenstein’s monster to represent the working class’s revolt amid the French Revolution.  He claims that the “creature”, or proletariat, are the ‘unpredictable’ consequences of society’s reckless need to advance in science and technology; which on both accounts (Creature and Proletariat), did not end well, for others. This ideology validates the anger and frustration felt by both the “creature” and working class at the time. The “creature”, demonstrates that in an especially dark passage,

I continued for the remainder of the day in my hovel in a state of utter and stupid despair. My protectors had departed and had broken the only link that held me to the world. For the first time the feelings of revenge and hatred filled my bosom, and I did not strive to control them, but allowing myself to be borne away by the stream, I bent my mind towards injury and death. (123) (block quote, which I couldn’t indent on WordPress)

Initially the first noticeable aspect of this passage is the vehement frustration the creature feels. This is a somebody who I educated and has been driven to violence by his environment as well as the people in it. In saying that his “protectors” had broken “the only link”, it seems like he is saying they have at last broken him. In that fracture made by his “protectors”, which is ironic because they did anything but protect him, he found his only solution to be death and destruction.

The proletariat were the very real equivalent of Shelley’s tale. They much like the “creature”, were created out of a desperate want for advancement, and once created, they were ignored, and pushed aside. In their growing desperation for employment, which in the “creatures” case would be accompaniment, they both came across destructive and violent paths. They both let anger and hate get in their hearts, more so than that, they allowed pride to get the better of them. The “creature” stated he spent the rest of the day “in a state of utter and stupid despair.” (123), which could have been ignored, but in the haze of hate, anger, and pride, he, much like the proletariat took retribution into their own hands. Societies rush to progress quickly without care of the repercussions, led to the frustration and corruption of otherwise nice and intelligent people; which is presented in Victors creation, and corruption of his creation.

Frankenstein: The Novel vs. the Myth

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

 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

img_0760
By: Carmen Ibarra

Before actually reading Mary Shelley’s book, Frankenstein I always perceived Frankenstein to be this ignorant, flesh-eating, zombie-like, brain-eating monster. Through stories and Halloween costumes, Frankenstein was always just an entertaining story and character. However, we learn through Mary Shelley that Frankenstein is actually the creator of this unnamed “monster” we all think we know so well. It is interesting how we depict the monster to be a simple-minded,  green monster when in reality he is a self-educated and intelligent.

I titled this post, The Real Monster because I believe the real monster of this story is Victor Frankenstein, he abandoned and neglected his very own creation from the start and because of this “the monster” had to fend for itself, learn EVERYTHING on his own, and attempt to understand the ways of life. Not only that, but Frankenstein also attempted to play God by creating life and thinking he can do so successfully. So, of course, I place all the blame on Frankenstein for neglecting and running away from his creation because if he would have properly introduced Frankenstein to the world perhaps things would have turned out differently.

Christopher Martinez

 

 

Before I start this blog I want whoever is reading this to go to Thesaurus.com and find synonyms for the word monster. One of the synonyms is Frankenstein, however he is clearly not a monster in Mary Shelley’s book Frankenstein. Whenever I think of Frankenstein all I imagine is a monster that kills and has no soul. I fell for the typical classification of Frankenstein being shown as malevolent. Likewise, the video for my blog is to show others the cliché that the monster is an ugly and a destructive monster.

Throughout the book, Mary Shelley describes the monster as a person who is innocent and is wanting to love someone. From the beginning of chapter eleven, the monster tells Victor Frankenstein his story up to that point. We learn from the monsters stories that he is an intellectual person who seeks knowledge about everything. The monster reads the books that Victor had in his jacket. These romantic books gave the monster a view of the world he lived in. He knew a lot what humans desired in life. The monster also looked for attention, but everyone seemed to be anxious and afraid to have his presence. Since no one wanted his companionship he accepted himself as an outcast.

I can conclude that at this point I am starting to feel as if Frankenstein is every student right now. Every student is curious to try learning new things and use them in the real world, while also seeking attention and friendships. I realized at this point that the real monster this whole time was the fantasy I had learned about the misunderstood monster.

 

Kaylin Insyarath

My childhood was filled with nothing but stories. They came in all shapes and sizes, through movies and television, but the most significant form of stories came to me through books. Fairy tales to be exact. I read about girls in red hoods and houses made out of candy and giant beanstalks and while in the back of my mind somewhere, my six year old self knew that what I was reading couldn’t possibly happen, it didn’t stop me from searching for comfort and solace as well as imagination in these stories that seemed so absurd to my older peers.

Somewhere along the lines of my vibrant youth and my collection of storybooks I came across one about a green monster brought to life by a mad scientist. To be more direct, Frankenstein was first presented to me as a fairy tale. It was a story that didn’t hold much depth, one that I found myself dismissing after just one read. After that, the story of Frankenstein was sprinkled across the societal aspects of my young life as my classmates painted their faces green for Halloween and the television shows that played before 9:30, made references. A monster and a mad scientist. That’s all this story was to me…until now.

After reading Mary Shelley’s original story, I found myself reveling in the vulnerability of it all. The authenticity that makes itself so apparent within the story is refreshing as Mary Shelley draws from the most painful experiences of her life. I favor the stories that seem as if it is a teleplay from the writer’s mind itself. As I look onto the paperback book that sits next to me right now, I know now that it is not the story of a mad scientist and a monster but rather a story of a man longing for friendship just as we all do and of a creature that is the most human character of all. The story stands before us as one that is undisguised and the passion that is found within the pages is what makes this novel one that seems more real than any other fairy tale I could come across.

frankie