Engcmp 0200
Frankenstein: Uncharacteristically Good?
I associate being evil with blind ambition, greed, selfishness, malicious intent, and immoral criminal acts without any regard for responsibility and without any sense of remorse. Albeit Frankenstein displayed characteristically evil traits throughout the entirety of his narration, it is because of the latter part of the criteria that Frankenstein’s character isn’t a villain.Frankenstein was forthright with his ambitions, and his greed was palpable while narrating his story. He wanted to be recognized as a revolutionary, as a god in science. After reaping the fruits of his sublime experiment, however, Frankenstein became overwhelmed with senses of horror and guilt. Frankenstein said, “Remorse extinguished every hope, I had been the author of unalterable evils, and I lived in daily fear lest the monster whom I had created should perpetrate some new wickedness.” In this instance, Frankenstein expresses not only the regret he felt for creating the monster, but also his concern for the safety of humanity. In addition, Frankenstein’s original intent wasn’t to create a threatening monster, rather he thought his “present attempts would at least lay the foundations of future successes.” His intentions weren’t pernicious by any degree, he wanted to provide framework for future science. Similar to Neil Armstrong’s words, he thought his actions would be “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” (mankind loosely defined to mean scientific development, of course). The anguish Frankenstein felt, in conjunction with his original intent, are uncharacteristic of someone who is truly evil.
Another instance where Frankenstein displayed his altruism was when he was creating the monsters companion. He expressed his reluctance to continue making the second monster when he said, “I shuddered to think that future ages might curse me as their pest, whose selfishness had not hesitated to buy its own peace at the price, perhaps, of the existence of the whole human race.” In this case, Frankenstein could have selfishly acquired peace of mind and happiness if he had consented to the monsters request for an other. However, his sense of responsibility towards the harmony of future generations caused him to abandon the project. He was cognizant of the dire repercussions, but chose to listen to his principles and selflessly sacrificed his own happiness. His actions, again, are contrary to what I think define someone who is evil.
As a result of sacrificing his own content and refusing to create a companion for the monster, Frankenstein contributed to his own demise. The unrelenting sense of guilt and responsibility towards the welfare and memory of his family resulted in an inescapable cycle of self-destruction, crippling paranoia, and a blind ambition to kill the monster. The dreams Frankenstein had of his family and home reinforced his sense of obligation to kill the monster. The monsters facetious messages exacerbated Frankenstein’s pursuit. While pursuing the monster, Frankenstein admits, “He had escaped me; and I must commence a destructive and almost endless journey across the mountainous ices of the ocean, - amidst cold that few of the inhabitants could long endure and which I, the native of a genial and sunny climate, could not hope to survive.” Frankenstein was entirely aware that further pursuit would kill him, but he chose to continue despite the war of attrition the monster was waging. The same obsessive behavior that lead to the creation of the monster, lead to Frankenstein’s demise.
3 comments:
Hey Albert!
I know I’m not your partner, but mine never posted a paper so I figured I’d comment on yours since no one has yet. Anyway, I like your paper. It’s well written and the argument isn’t trivial. You also don’t spend too much time summarizing the novel, which is always nice.
As for improvements, you should probably add page numbers after your quotations (just a technicality) and the quotations you use are a little on the long side. Also, I would avoid using the first person (what a hypocritical criticism!). The second and third paragraphs are very focused and definitely advance your argument, but the fourth seems to get a little off topic. It sort of seems that at the end you are arguing that the fact that he contributed to his own downfall by not creating the monster makes him a good character. I know that Adam says we shouldn’t repeat our argument in the last paragraph, but I think you should make sure the reader knows you are still addressing the same argument until the end of the paper.
By reading your paper, I became convinced of your point of view, but having read the novel, there seem to be some discrepancies. Though you say he does take responsibility for his actions and has a sense of remorse, he considers himself blameless for what he has done (this is at the end of the novel when he is talking to Walton). It seems that at the end of the novel, he isn’t really taking responsibility for his actions. I think you should address this, but you could say something like “despite the fact that he tells Walton he considers himself blameless, his actions show that he has at least a subconscious desire to take responsibility for his actions.” As long as you make the reader know you are aware of this fact, but still believe that his actions make him a good character, the argument still holds up.
In the third paragraph (sorry I’m jumping around here), you say that he could have selfishly created the monster to ensure his own peace of mind, but couldn’t it also be selfish that he refuses to create a mate for a monster that he has sentenced to a life of loneliness by the act of its creation (I’m just trying to give you counterarguments so you can make your argument stronger and prove me wrong)? In your intro you say “albeit Frankenstein displayed characteristically evil traits throughout the entirety of his narration,” he isn’t evil because he shows remorse. I think you could elaborate a little more on what Frankenstein has done that is characteristically evil, just to show a contrast.
Frankenstein: Uncharacteristically Good?
To be evil is to express blind ambition, greed, selfishness, malicious intent, and immoral criminal acts without any regard for responsibility and without any sense of remorse. Throughout the entirety of his narration, Frankenstein does display characteristically evil traits. He abandons his monster, condemning it to an outcast life; he noxiously destroys the monsters companion after promising to create it, exacerbating the monsters displacement from society. Despite this, Frankenstein showed anguish and remorse throughout the story, which is contrary to this definition of evil. This is most obvious when he said, “I was seized by remorse and the sense of guilt, which hurried me away to a hell of intense tortures” (p. 93). Albeit Frankenstein displayed characteristically evil traits throughout his story, it is because of the remorse and guilt he felt, it is because of the emotional torture he endured as a result of his actions that make him uncharacteristically good.
Frankenstein was forthright with his ambitions, and his greed was palpable while narrating his story. He wanted to be recognized as a revolutionary, as a god in science. After reaping the fruits of his sublime experiment, however, Frankenstein became overwhelmed with senses of horror and penitence. Frankenstein said, “I lived in daily fear lest the monster whom I had created should perpetrate some new wickedness.” In this instance, Frankenstein expresses not only the regret he felt for creating the monster, but also his concern for the safety of humanity. In addition, Frankenstein’s original intent wasn’t to create a threatening monster, rather he thought his “present attempts would at least lay the foundations of future successes.” His intentions weren’t pernicious by any degree, he wanted to provide framework for future science. Similar to Neil Armstrong’s words, he thought his actions would be “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” (mankind loosely defined to mean scientific development, of course). The anguish Frankenstein felt, in conjunction with his original intent, are uncharacteristic of someone who is truly evil.
Another instance where Frankenstein displayed his altruism was when he was creating the monsters companion. He expressed his reluctance to continue making the second monster when he said, “I shuddered to think that future ages might curse me as their pest, whose selfishness had not hesitated to buy its own peace at the price, perhaps, of the existence of the whole human race.” In this case, Frankenstein could have selfishly acquired peace of mind and happiness if he had consented to the monsters request for an other. However, his sense of responsibility towards the harmony of future generations motivated him to abandon the project. He was cognizant of the dire repercussions, but chose to listen to his principles and selflessly sacrificed his own happiness. Some might argue that Frankenstein was being evil when he condemned his creation to a life of loneliness and despair, when he abandoned the monster immediately after animating it with life. This is a poignant fact, but Frankenstein was not aware of the anguish the monster felt; the months of solitude the monster had to endure. After the monster told Frankenstein about the rejection and desolation he had experienced as a result of his abandonment, however, Frankenstein again showed his decency. He said, “His tale, and the feelings he now expressed, proved him to be a creature of fine sensations; and did I not as his maker, owe him all the portion of happiness that it was in my power to bestow?” (p. 148). Again, Frankenstein showed remorse, a characteristic of someone who is not truly evil. In the end, however, the anarchy Frankenstein thought two monsters could create on society had greater weight on his conscience than the monsters emotions.
At the end of his narration, Frankenstein said, “During these last days I have been occupied in examining my past conduct; nor do I find it blamable” (p. 219). This may seem like Frankenstein is contradicting the remorse he assumed during the bulk of his story, however, he continues to tell Walton, “My duties towards the beings of my own species had greater claims to my attention, because they included a greater proportion of happiness…” (p 219). Frankenstein, as mentioned before, was evil for creating the monster but to be evil is to “… without any regard for responsibility and without any sense of remorse.” In this case, Frankenstein thought his responsibility towards the happiness of beings of his own species was paramount compared to the emotional needs of the monster as well as his own peace and content. The duty Frankenstein displayed towards humanity is a characteristically good trait.
Frankenstein exchanged his own well being by refusing to create the monster for the greater good of society. As a result of his sacrifice, Frankenstein contributed to his own demise. The unrelenting sense of guilt and responsibility towards the welfare and memory of his family resulted in an inescapable cycle of self-destruction, crippling paranoia, and a blind ambition to kill the monster. The dreams Frankenstein had of his family and home reinforced his sense of obligation to kill the monster. The monsters facetious messages exacerbated Frankenstein’s pursuit. While pursuing the monster, Frankenstein admits, “He had escaped me; and I must commence a destructive and almost endless journey across the mountainous ices of the ocean, - amidst cold that few of the inhabitants could long endure and which I, the native of a genial and sunny climate, could not hope to survive.” Frankenstein was entirely aware that further pursuit would kill him, but he chose to continue despite the war of attrition the monster was waging. The obsessive guilt and responsibility he felt towards his family and society, respectively, the compulsive pursuit to satisfy his conscience, eventually lead to Frankenstein’s demise.
Bailey - Good response. A particularly good moment was when you pointed out contrary evidence to Albert's position - usually I'm happy if people are making that kind of point by the end of the semester.
Albert - Your argument shows some complexity and sophistication, which is great to see. I would have liked a clearer statement in the beginning, though, of how you see the relationship between evil and remorse. Does remorse always make evil into good?
I think you do a generally good job exploring how, by your particular definition, Frankenstein is not evil. I am, for the most part, impressed by your line of argument, your facility of language, and your use of evidence.
Two things bother me, though. First - you give a definition of "evil" with no context. Where is this definition from, and why did you pick it? Given this definition, you have a solid argument for Frankenstein's virtue - but why this definition?
Second, I thought you might have done more with contrary evidence, although you are already trying to do so. For instance - at the end of the novel, when the monster is *not* violent to Walton, we might question Frankenstein's truthfulness, for instance. You also let him off the hook for abandoning the monster (and for assuming his guilt) rather easily.
This is good work, especially for a first paper, despite those flaws.
Post a Comment