This is it folks, our last blog assignment. Sorry for the delay in posting this week's question. Our wonderful Franken-blogosphere is about to close its doors. But before we say goodbye, lets revisit our discussion from last Friday about the Creature and whether he is a victim or a perpetrator. We likely won't have time to delve into another debate before the end of the week, but I don't want to dismiss your thoughts on the matter. So....read the question below and consider free write response to help you focus on this key issue from the text.Even though the Creature seems to learn compassion and reason from the cottagers, he still--in the end--vows to make humans suffer. Why? Do you still think he is a victim? And to help you practice for your annotation test, support your answer with textual evidence!
On a side note, we haven't talked too much about the role of women in the story. This question, (though not required but feel free to answer in your post and I encourage you to do so), might also help you prepare for the test. Think about the role of "mother" in the novel. The usual role of the mother in bringing life in the world is negated (voided) in Frankenstein. Do you think this motif is important?
10 comments:
I think that the creature is a victim. He did not have a proper upbringing and though he did commit a crime, how was he supposed to know right from wrong? For example, on page 88, the creature says, "Cursed creator! Why did form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?" The creature feels like he is hated and if his own creator is disgusted by him, then the creature will then be disgust by his own self. Therefore, becasue he has not had support and compassion, he is a victim. With the mother role, I think it is a motif that it is negated. I think it is showing the dominating power that men had in that time period and how they received better education. It can also be a motif for that every child needs its mother.
I think that the creature is not a victim because he never learned what is right and what is wrong. He learns language and all these things from the cottagers, but when they hit him and react to him it doesn't teach him how he should act. This is an example on page 91 "At that instant...to my hovel." It shows how they treat him and how he never learns how to react to someone. A mother figure I think is very important. Bringing life into the world is the motif of a mother figure. Victor acts as the mother to the creature but doesn't treat him like a son. I think the outcome is evident and it shows that without a caring figure it can really do a lot of harm.
I do not think that the creature is or isnt a victim because he has swore revenge on Victor and has commited murder. I do not think though that the creature has not been a victim at all in the book. One moment in the book that shows how the creature was a victim is on page 99 and 98 when victor explains that he creature's words had an effect on him giving the creature some sympathy but when he looked up at hte creature's grotesque face and appearence he began to feel horror and ill from the creature. I think that there is an overwhelming sense of the creature not being a victim because i cannot feel sympathy for him after he swore revenge on victor, killed william and is suspected to have recently killed henry clerval. I think the creature does not deel with his feelings very well.
Jonathan Blanks
I think the creature was a victim because he never really learned right from wrong. Even though he watched the cottagers..I think to really make him good, his creator(Victor) shouldn't have been so disgusted by him and turn away from the creature. In the book, the creature told Victor that he was lonely and that really no one loved him..and thats what he really needed from the beginning.
I think the creature was a victim because everyone around him shunned him or was afraid of him because of his looks. He just needed a friend and thats why on page 98 the creature is asking Victor to make him a companion so that he won't be lonely anymore. Even though he watched the cottagers for awhile..and learned from them..he still didn't know that by his actions, he could be punished.
I think, at first, that the creature was a victim. He didn't know any better because he never had anyone to teach him right vs wrong. He didn't have bad intentions at first. But, after observing the cottagers, I think the creature became a perpetrator. He knew what he was doing by threatening Frankenstein to "be there on the night of his wedding." I agree with Brittany about how having a mother/father figure is so important, especially in the novel.
I think that the creature is a victim. He had no family or friends to help him learn. He had to learn for himself without anyone caring for him or showing him compassion or what it means to care for someone and lose them. When Victor created the monste, he left him there. The creature had non one to begin with. He had to threaten Victor because that was the only way that Victor would talk to him. The creature was lonely and needed a family or someone to care for him and for him to care for. The monster is a victim because he never knew what it meant to lose someone or to care for someone deeply.
The creature is not a victim because he comprehends the rules and morals. He understands that what he does is wrong, but choses to do it anyways. He kills William and Clerval just to get revenge on victor. The creature is a criminal, because he understands that killing is wrong but he still does it.
I think that the victim is a victim. He is never educated. I think in class we spoke a lot about his lack of education pertaining to social rules and boundries but the education he did not recieve is not just in those areas. He was never educated on how to control his rage. In today's society we grow up learning to hit others and learn to channel aggresion into other areas. Because the creature never recieved those lessons he was a victim of society.
I believe that the creature is a victim. He was brought into the world without any guidance and therefore had to learn social norms by himself. He may have watched some people kill, and therefore, he may have seen it in a positive manner because others were doing it. I also agree with what Alex says, we learn from our surroundings even with positive parent influence. So, when the creature was brought into the world, not only did he have almost no positive (or negative) influence from his father, but he had to decide what he believed was right and wrong from what he observed.
Post a Comment