Can Frankenstein's Monster be murdered?

[Shea]

I just finished re-reading Frankenstein, and wondered if it would be lawful if Frankenstien had murdered his monster. Athough, he used different body parts that were once a regular human, even if the monster had no memory of the former life from the brain that Frankenstien gave him, would he still be considered a regular (though severely distorted) human, or just a creation that didn't matter if it were destroyed?

[chrissy]

Since Frankenstien created the monster who is a living thing, wouldn't he be considered his father? I think abandoning the monster once it came to life was unlawful and had he been a responsible creator there would have been no need for him to murder it.

[Arteum]

Frankenstein was my first in the long list of dissatisfactions of the way women-novelists handle the plot. The story and the idea for the 18th century were brilliant but the novel is fraught with numerous logical and scientific errors. It seems, Shelley's talent was sufficient only for the construction of refined phrases (which are really beautriful) and the ecstatic description of the glaciers in Alps ...

[Munro]

Athough, he used different body parts that were once a regular human, even if the monster had no memory of the former life from the brain that Frankenstien gave him, would he still be considered a regular (though severely distorted) human, or just a creation that didn't matter if it were destroyed?

I think, whether Shelley intended to raise this or not in the novel, that your question is something substantial to think about after reading Frankenstein, in regards to whether or not something not naturally created can be considered human, or having a concience, or a right to live. It's an idea that has continued onwards through Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, and HAL in 2001, and recently in a lot of modern science fiction stories, I guess.

In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, this question of morality in science is maybe what makes the book remain so popular and widely studied today. What makes somebody human is not their physical appearance, or how they were created, but the fact that they have a rational conciousness. But humans regulate who is human and who is treated decently by what they understand, what is familiar to them. The monster, by what he recounted to Dr Frankenstein at his home in the mountains, did have a human mind, and he sought merely to become apart of society (loneliness is nasty), but his initial abandonment by his creator (like being left by your own mother) and his constant (and often cruel) rejection by humans led him to become destructive...anyway I'm digressing, so yeah...I don't know what that has to do with anything. I was just letting my thoughts flow. What I mean is, the novel shows the human side of the monster, because all he wanted was a girlfriend.

Personally I think that Frankenstein's monster had just as much of a right to live than any human being. To me, the weak person was Victor Frankenstein, not his creation, and both lives were ruined. I remember feeling so sorry for the poor 'daemon' during his cold experiences with mankind. And so he killed people. Good for him.

[Shea]

I felt very sorry for the monster too, especially after the cottagers treated him the way they did, but I don't think that really gave him the right to go ahead and kill people. On the other hand, we as readers don't know everything that the cottagers taught him and don't know if he really understood these murders to be as bad as just distraughting (is that a word?) his creator. I know that he must have collected a lot of info on good and bad by reading Milton, but I wasn't familiar with the other two works. It kind of puts you at an impass because you want to feel sorry for the creature because of the way he was treated and the fact that he's only a couple of years old, but he commits all these heinous crimes. It also doesn't help as Arteum pointed out that the novel isn't well written though the story is wonderful. The writing is very choppy and the gothic style is one that always leaves peices out.

Munro, you made a good point that rational conciousness is what makes us human, and in this story it's easy too forget that and get caught up in the "experiment". Thanks! ;)

[Admin]

Here is something to discuss:

There was no monster, there was only Dr. Frankenstein. Its all in his mind and he has a split personality and performed the murders during psychotic breaks.

[Wilfred]

Here is something to discuss:

There was no monster, there was only Dr. Frankenstein. Its all in his mind and he has a split personality and performed the murders during psychotic breaks.

Why would you wnat to discuss this?

[Shea]

We touched on that in class actually. And that easily could be the case for most of the story, except for Walton. He's just simply writing letters to his sister, but he sees the monster both at the beginning (though it was just a far away glimps) and at the end. Unless Frankenstien also became Walton, and wrote about his own death just before he committed suicide. But then Walton would have to die. Aghh!

Because of my medical understanding, I would rather beleive that the monster was all in Frankenstien's head, but this Walton character poses a problem. But that's Gothicism for you. :-?

[Shea]

I just read the introduction to my copy of Frankenstien (a horrible habit I have to go straight to the first chapter), and the writer made an interesting point on how The only two credible characters to have ever seen the monster are Walton and, of course, Frankenstien. But all three, Walton, the Dr., and monster, have this overreaching desire for adventure and knowledge. All three sort of parallel each other and could very well all be Frankenstien.

[Munro]

That's a really interesting idea, I never even considered that. I don't know if Shelley ever meant for that to happen in her writing, but now my whole perception of the novel is changed. I hope that the monster isn't real! How much better would the book be? Even though it already was good, but still.