AJohnson 91se
02-17-2009, 06:29 AM
Alexander B. Johnson
Neva Knott
IB Literature of the Americas HL
17 Feb. 2009
A Dual Tragedy
C.S. Lewis once said “What can you ever know of other people's souls—of their temptations, their opportunities, and struggles?” (Lewis 22) this is the tale of a creation of Dr. Viktor Frankenstein whose needs were shunned by his creator. It is Viktor’s ultimate wish that he aborted the wretch in the midst of his scientific ambition. Viktor’s self-pity, however, shows not a mastermind who inadvertently created wretch, but a selfish man, playing the role of a god-like creator; refusing responsibility that comes with it. Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein unveils an eloquent being in the Monster, showing that a beautiful mind can be behind the most wretched faces. Chapter 10 [pg. 87-88] marks the first encounter between Viktor and his creation in the sublime summit of Montanvert. The Monster makes it evident that justice will seek out its avoiders—Dr. Frankenstein, if he refuses responsibility for his creation and of the death of William Frankenstein along with the imprisonment and execution of Justine Moritz. Within this excerpt, Dr. Frankenstein and his Creation are characterised as foils through use of juxtaposition as Viktor’s hostile nature juxtaposes with the Monsters eloquence. Viktor’s fate is foreshadowed by his own creation, leaving Viktor in crossroads between survival and demise, functioning as the ultimate turning point in the novel in which all else rests upon.
It was Viktor’s desire throughout the primary portion of the novel to uncover secrets of creation through philosophy and modern science. With these desires he created a monster that sparked fear and torture in his being. Viktor continually described his creation as wretch and undeserving of the fruits of life that all enjoy; love. With Viktor’s abandonment, the monster sought revenge and murdered Viktor’s brother, William Frankenstein, framing Justine Moritz. When these acts are committed by the Monster we are able to sympathise with Viktor. However, in this passage, the story transitions into the monster’s point of view and we are able to psychologically accredit the monster for these acts as we see the cruelty that Viktor demonstrated towards the monster in abandoning it. It comes to a surprising revelation in Chapter 10 that the monster breaks free of his desire for revenge and develops desire to let go of the past and develop a meaningful future. Viktor, however, remains statically characterised as the self-pitying man seeking destruction, telling the Monster to “Begone!” and that “I will not hear from you!” (Shelly 87). This attitude demonstrates Viktor’s hostile and static nature juxtaposed with the Monsters eloquence in asking Viktor to “Let your compassion be moved, and do not disdain me.” (Shelly 87) This juxtaposition creates a tension between the two characters’ while starkly contrasting their demeanours; further outlining clash of the characters in the struggle for relief of one another. The characters juxtaposed attitudes are matched by the ultimate effect on the reader in which the Monsters eloquence is highlighted by Viktor’s folly as he turns the other cheek when presented with the demand to finish the job he started and the chance to seek forgiveness for his neglectful mind-set.
It is apparent in Shelly’s characterisation of the Monster through dialogue between Viktor and his creation that the Monster merely requests to be a part of humanity. With this desire, the monster moves away from his cliché characteristic as a monster towards an eloquent human; begging Viktor to “Listen to my tale; when you have heard that, abandon or commiserate me,” (Shelly 88). As the Monster repetitively confronts Viktor with his desires and his struggles, Shelly characterises the Monster as static, moving away from monstrosity demonstrated initially and towards a humane creature. Viktor, however, demonstrates immense struggle to change as he constantly informs the monster that “there can be no community between you and me” (Shelly 87) demonstrating how Viktor’s attitude is juxtaposed with the Monsters, creating the clashing of these two main characters in the structure of the plot. Shelly uses this clash to demonstrate how both Viktor and his creation are foil characters, challenging one another to develop. Viktor wants to rid himself of the creation while the monster challenges Viktor to overcome this self-centredness and move towards a humane mind-set.
The monster highlights the responsibilities of a creator and the creation, showing that the creator has the responsibility of presenting opportunity to his creation to live harmoniously with his counterpart. Interestingly enough, Viktor, who so largely desired for the status as a creator, refuses to follow through with this. As the monster states in the passage “I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed” it becomes apparent that Viktor has not yet completed his duties as creator. He created a creature with human desires yet he presented no manner in which the monster could achieve them. Instead, Viktor created a creature destined for a tragic nature. Viktor is arrogant and blind to see that “it is in your power to recompense me” (Shelly 87).
When we observe Viktor’s blindness towards his responsibilities as creator we are presented with a cruel man who becomes the “real monster.” Perhaps it is in Viktor’s mindset that he is an ultimate being, a life-form who has no responsibility towards his fellow creation. However, it is this arrogance that will prove his demise; reminding the reader that Viktor cannot truly surpass nature nor ignore rules of humanity. As a creator Viktor must not be a barrier to his creatures happiness but an aid; yet Viktor fails to see this and remains hostile, telling his creature that “we are enemies” (Shelly 87). The hostility and unreasoning nature seen in Viktor boldly outlines man’s unfit nature for being a god-like creator. In contrast to Viktor’s refusal to cooperate, we are also presented with the Monster, fully ready to play his part. Ready to accept that Viktor can “destroy the work of [his] hands” (Shelly 88) if he so chooses. All he asks is that Viktor fulfil his duty to allow his creature to “speak in their own defence before they are condemned” (Shelly 88). As we see the two interact through dialogue it becomes established that the Monster, not Viktor is the hero of the story whilst Viktor is the antagonist, who creates conflict for the protagonist.
The Monsters eloquence and sense of cooperation as a creation of the creator is juxtaposed with Viktor’s sense of an unrelenting creator who refuses any form of commencement “Listen to me, Frankenstein. You accuse me of murder, and yet you would, with a satisfied conscience, destroy your own creature.” (Shelly 88). As we see the tension between the two characters and their ultimate inability to form compromise we are further reminded of the tragic nature of Frankenstein; when the creator refuses to provide reason for existence to the Monster we see how, despite the monsters eloquence, he will suffer a tragic existence. As we see this harsh reality emerge in the novel we are reminded of the sombre connexion between the two foil characters—knowing that neither Viktor nor the monster will enjoy a peaceful life because of Viktor’s hostile and uncompromising nature.
Within this passage, a crossroad is formed for both Viktor and the Monster; it is with this that we realise that one’s actions influence each other and is responsible for the characters development. As we see Viktor, a flat character who refuses to commence responsibilities as the creator paired with the Monster, a dynamic character that is willing to make the changes necessary to achieve happiness their foil nature is unveiled. As juxtaposition vividly demonstrates the characters clashing natures we see the dual tragic nature of Frankenstein. If one refuses to play the game of life, all will suffer.
Neva Knott
IB Literature of the Americas HL
17 Feb. 2009
A Dual Tragedy
C.S. Lewis once said “What can you ever know of other people's souls—of their temptations, their opportunities, and struggles?” (Lewis 22) this is the tale of a creation of Dr. Viktor Frankenstein whose needs were shunned by his creator. It is Viktor’s ultimate wish that he aborted the wretch in the midst of his scientific ambition. Viktor’s self-pity, however, shows not a mastermind who inadvertently created wretch, but a selfish man, playing the role of a god-like creator; refusing responsibility that comes with it. Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein unveils an eloquent being in the Monster, showing that a beautiful mind can be behind the most wretched faces. Chapter 10 [pg. 87-88] marks the first encounter between Viktor and his creation in the sublime summit of Montanvert. The Monster makes it evident that justice will seek out its avoiders—Dr. Frankenstein, if he refuses responsibility for his creation and of the death of William Frankenstein along with the imprisonment and execution of Justine Moritz. Within this excerpt, Dr. Frankenstein and his Creation are characterised as foils through use of juxtaposition as Viktor’s hostile nature juxtaposes with the Monsters eloquence. Viktor’s fate is foreshadowed by his own creation, leaving Viktor in crossroads between survival and demise, functioning as the ultimate turning point in the novel in which all else rests upon.
It was Viktor’s desire throughout the primary portion of the novel to uncover secrets of creation through philosophy and modern science. With these desires he created a monster that sparked fear and torture in his being. Viktor continually described his creation as wretch and undeserving of the fruits of life that all enjoy; love. With Viktor’s abandonment, the monster sought revenge and murdered Viktor’s brother, William Frankenstein, framing Justine Moritz. When these acts are committed by the Monster we are able to sympathise with Viktor. However, in this passage, the story transitions into the monster’s point of view and we are able to psychologically accredit the monster for these acts as we see the cruelty that Viktor demonstrated towards the monster in abandoning it. It comes to a surprising revelation in Chapter 10 that the monster breaks free of his desire for revenge and develops desire to let go of the past and develop a meaningful future. Viktor, however, remains statically characterised as the self-pitying man seeking destruction, telling the Monster to “Begone!” and that “I will not hear from you!” (Shelly 87). This attitude demonstrates Viktor’s hostile and static nature juxtaposed with the Monsters eloquence in asking Viktor to “Let your compassion be moved, and do not disdain me.” (Shelly 87) This juxtaposition creates a tension between the two characters’ while starkly contrasting their demeanours; further outlining clash of the characters in the struggle for relief of one another. The characters juxtaposed attitudes are matched by the ultimate effect on the reader in which the Monsters eloquence is highlighted by Viktor’s folly as he turns the other cheek when presented with the demand to finish the job he started and the chance to seek forgiveness for his neglectful mind-set.
It is apparent in Shelly’s characterisation of the Monster through dialogue between Viktor and his creation that the Monster merely requests to be a part of humanity. With this desire, the monster moves away from his cliché characteristic as a monster towards an eloquent human; begging Viktor to “Listen to my tale; when you have heard that, abandon or commiserate me,” (Shelly 88). As the Monster repetitively confronts Viktor with his desires and his struggles, Shelly characterises the Monster as static, moving away from monstrosity demonstrated initially and towards a humane creature. Viktor, however, demonstrates immense struggle to change as he constantly informs the monster that “there can be no community between you and me” (Shelly 87) demonstrating how Viktor’s attitude is juxtaposed with the Monsters, creating the clashing of these two main characters in the structure of the plot. Shelly uses this clash to demonstrate how both Viktor and his creation are foil characters, challenging one another to develop. Viktor wants to rid himself of the creation while the monster challenges Viktor to overcome this self-centredness and move towards a humane mind-set.
The monster highlights the responsibilities of a creator and the creation, showing that the creator has the responsibility of presenting opportunity to his creation to live harmoniously with his counterpart. Interestingly enough, Viktor, who so largely desired for the status as a creator, refuses to follow through with this. As the monster states in the passage “I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed” it becomes apparent that Viktor has not yet completed his duties as creator. He created a creature with human desires yet he presented no manner in which the monster could achieve them. Instead, Viktor created a creature destined for a tragic nature. Viktor is arrogant and blind to see that “it is in your power to recompense me” (Shelly 87).
When we observe Viktor’s blindness towards his responsibilities as creator we are presented with a cruel man who becomes the “real monster.” Perhaps it is in Viktor’s mindset that he is an ultimate being, a life-form who has no responsibility towards his fellow creation. However, it is this arrogance that will prove his demise; reminding the reader that Viktor cannot truly surpass nature nor ignore rules of humanity. As a creator Viktor must not be a barrier to his creatures happiness but an aid; yet Viktor fails to see this and remains hostile, telling his creature that “we are enemies” (Shelly 87). The hostility and unreasoning nature seen in Viktor boldly outlines man’s unfit nature for being a god-like creator. In contrast to Viktor’s refusal to cooperate, we are also presented with the Monster, fully ready to play his part. Ready to accept that Viktor can “destroy the work of [his] hands” (Shelly 88) if he so chooses. All he asks is that Viktor fulfil his duty to allow his creature to “speak in their own defence before they are condemned” (Shelly 88). As we see the two interact through dialogue it becomes established that the Monster, not Viktor is the hero of the story whilst Viktor is the antagonist, who creates conflict for the protagonist.
The Monsters eloquence and sense of cooperation as a creation of the creator is juxtaposed with Viktor’s sense of an unrelenting creator who refuses any form of commencement “Listen to me, Frankenstein. You accuse me of murder, and yet you would, with a satisfied conscience, destroy your own creature.” (Shelly 88). As we see the tension between the two characters and their ultimate inability to form compromise we are further reminded of the tragic nature of Frankenstein; when the creator refuses to provide reason for existence to the Monster we see how, despite the monsters eloquence, he will suffer a tragic existence. As we see this harsh reality emerge in the novel we are reminded of the sombre connexion between the two foil characters—knowing that neither Viktor nor the monster will enjoy a peaceful life because of Viktor’s hostile and uncompromising nature.
Within this passage, a crossroad is formed for both Viktor and the Monster; it is with this that we realise that one’s actions influence each other and is responsible for the characters development. As we see Viktor, a flat character who refuses to commence responsibilities as the creator paired with the Monster, a dynamic character that is willing to make the changes necessary to achieve happiness their foil nature is unveiled. As juxtaposition vividly demonstrates the characters clashing natures we see the dual tragic nature of Frankenstein. If one refuses to play the game of life, all will suffer.