Define the word: Monster. Why does Shelley refer to Victor's creation as "creature" or "creation"? Who is responsible for naming him "monster"? What do you think that means? Who, in your assessment is the real "monster"? Defend your answer.
A monster is something of unusual size that is usually ugly and frightening. Victor is responsible for naming him "monster." He uses this name because he is ashamed and afraid of what he created and this is his excuse for the way his creation is. He's a "monster" and in Victor's mind there's nothing he could have done to prevent that. However, Victor is the real "monster" because he just abandoned his creation to fend for himself. He didn't attempt to teach him anything on survival, morals, or self-protection. Therefore, there were many things he could have done in order to prevent his "creation" from turing into a "monster." Shelly refers to the creation as "creature" or "creation" because that's all he really is. A "creature" that was never taught how not to become a "monster."
As Bailey said in regards to the physical definition, a monster is a creature of unusual size with frighteningly hideous features. Another description of a monster references their actions, which would be horrific and cruel. The Creature Victor created may naively be esteemed a monster based on his different exterior, however, despite the Creature's lack of guidance in his life, he maintained a somewhat civil nature towards humanity, which he was utterly envious of. Because the Creature deliberately attempts to eschew the "monstrous" nature from his own actions and try to gain solace in the life he lives, Shelley never esteems the Creature as "monster" for she does not believe he is so. Victor's scorn towards his own creation - as well as societies contempt - engendered the detrimental title for the Creature, which genuinely makes THEM the real monsters - both society and Victor for they deluded a Creature of potentially pure nature into believing he was something wholly wicked.
@Eriel: I think your assessment here is quite accurate and apt. The real monster in the story (according even to Shelley) is Victor. He creates and then abandons and ignores. He is far more guilty, I think in our assessment, than his creature. The creature then is labeled "monster" for his actions which can directly be attributed to Victor's callousness toward him. Good points.
I actually said something about this elsewhere before I saw this question! I'll reiterate and elaborate.
I think that Shelley believes Victor's creation to be a product of nurture, rather than nature, and thus cannot inherently be a monster. Creation implies reverence, perfection, love and adoration, although you could also argue that by calling it a creation she is referring to it in the most neutral term available, next to "thing." It is the one thing that is indisputable about the creature: that it was created. Both Victor and society call it a monster because they fear an hate it. It does not fit the standards the society has set up for acceptability, and thus anything outside of those standards( murderers and criminals included) fit into the description of monster. I would say that what everyone else has said before is true, that Victor is the true monster, but I would also that society is a monster. One could argue that society created Victor and that he, too, cannot be inherently monstrous. Society and culture implants ideas and allows them to ferment, and although it is not an excuse for behavior, it may be cited as a cause.
I think that Eriel is on to something when she says that a monster can also be defined by their actions. I think that it is very myopic to assume that a monster is defined solely by physical characteristics. Hitler was a monster in every sense of the word, yet he looked no different than you and me. Defining a monster requires us to identify the way that they treat humanity.
The reason why Shelley never refers to the creature as a monster is because she recognizes that merely looking different than the rest of us does not make one a monster. Even when the creature is acting out violently, Shelley does not call it a monster because she recognizes that the creature is not at fault. The term monster arises from Victor's disgust towards this creature, but his disgust is not only misplaced, it is what makes him the monster.
If you read the chapters where the creature tells his story, you realize that the creature came into this world as a metaphorical baby. He did not know evil, he merely learned based on what he was surrounded with. Victor's immediate rejection of the creature forces him into believing that he is a monster. This is what makes Victor the true monster. Instead of trying to help incorporate his innocent creature into society, he turns his back on him as if to ensure, if not endorse, societal violence against the creature.
People may object to this saying that the creature was clearly a monster, he murdered innocent people, but this blame would be misplaced. The creature did not come into the world intending evil. In fact, the creature even says that he did not like violence, and he was appalled on several occasions when people treated him as a monster. The person who is at fault for the creatures violent actions is the person who brought him into this world, and then abandoned him so that the only lifestyle he ever learned was one of pain, misery, suffering, and violence. That person is Victor.
I disagree with almost everyone on their definition of the word "monster". I think what monster truly signifies is an individual that strays from the norms society has set. Every society has set standards that they accept as normal. Any alter behaviors are considered inappropriate. However, when I look closely to these standards in some cultures, I am disgusted and find their way of life and traditions to be monstrous. For example, there's an Indian tribe that breaks the noses of all newborn babies. The Chinese used to, and still might, wrap the feet of girls during their growth stages to ensure the palms of the feet did not grow. This "enhanced" their feminine walk and allowed them to walk like a "true" lady. These traditions, when looked at in our society, are seen as monstrous and inhumanely cruel acts. Just a thought I had while reading this question and everyones answers.
Are you saying that we label people monsters if they stray from the norms of OUR society? For example, it seems like your definition would prevent us from labeling slave drivers monsters at the time because they were just following the norms of the society.
In reference to your examples, I don't think that you disagree with our definitions at all based on your example. Our argument (or at least mine) is that these actions are monstrous and ought to be treated as such because of the way in which the degrade the notion of human rights. Regardless of whether or not there are societal norms in favor of taking such actions, how does that make someone any less monstrous?
A monster is usually something or someone who does terrible things in the eyes of man. Many times bad looks go with it in the definition. Shelley refers to Victor's creation as "creature" and "creation" because it was a creation of Victor and creature because it may have human qualities, but is considered inhuman to mankind.The people responsible for naming it a monster are Victor and Walton. Victor calls him a monster when he meets him on the mountain, and Walton calls him a monster when he meets him in the cabin of the ship. In my assessment, the real monster is Victor, if he had not simply raised the creature, or comply with the creature later, Victor's family would not have died. Also when the creature kills the first few family members, Victor does absolutely nothing about it except weep about it all the time.
The word monster is defined as any creature so ugly or monstrous as to frighten people according to dictionary.com. I believe that Shelley refers to Victor’s creation as creature because I do not believe that Shelley thinks that Victor’s creation is a monster. Although he is deformed and fits the definition of “monster,” I do not think that she wants the reader to view the creation as the monster but Victor. The person responsible for naming the creature monster would be Victor. Victor names his creation a monster because of the monster’s appearance at first but then refers to the monster’s killing streak. In my opinion I think that the real monster is Victor. For Victor to abandon his creation just because of its appearance tells you something about his character. Victor doesn’t even take time to understand or get to know his creation thus leaving his creation to fend for itself and learn the basic feelings of love and companionship. It is Victor’s fault that the creature turned out the way it did. The nature vs. nurture theory could definitely be applied to this story. If Victor had nurtured and cared for the creature I am positive that the creature would have turned out completely different. The fact is that Victor was based only on the superficial aspect of life, reflecting the views of society as well. Taylor Brown
Monster is a typically large, ugly, and frightening creature. I think that Victor is responsible for giving his creation this name, because it seems as though he feels ashamed of what he created and how hideous it was. I feel like Victor is the real monster of the story. He isn't a "large, ugly, and frightening" person, but the way he handles the whole monster situation is cruel. He allows the monster to run about and doesn't take responsibility for his creation's actions causing an innocent (Justine) to die. He allows himself to neglect his creation of love and care that he received as a child.
When i think of monster i think of an ugly, big, maybe deformed creature who's only plan is to hunt you down. The "monster" created by Shelly i feel has a sort of innocence to him, in thinking that he only wants to have a friend. He doesn't want to be lonely. Which, isn't that what everyone wants? So i think Eriel is right in saying what leads him to be a true "monster" is his actions in what he feels of loneliness. He wasn't taught how to react to someone who treats him wrong. He does what's in our "human nature" which is to have it out for the person who does you wrong and do whatever you can to destroy that person. In my opinion the "real monster" would be Victor for not taking full responsibility for the monster and for not honoring what he said he would do by giving him a companion. Yes, maybe in the end they would have children and there would be many monsters created but he still could have taken him in, instead of running from him and destroying the monsters last hope.
I would just like to throw in a question..Why does Shelley never name the creature? Was that on purpose or was that just because he was abandoned? What are your thoughts?
Josh - I don't know, Hitler's mustache was pretty monstrous...
To Shelby - That is an interesting point. I think she doesn't name the creature to further accentuate his complete and total isolation from society. In many cultures and religions, for example, Hinduism, the giving of a name is a very big deal. Biblical names have meanings and characters in the Bible are given new names with new meanings to represent their actions. Abraham, Sarah, for example. (I would just like to note that Sarah means princess, which I find appropriate.) In the Hindu faith, there is a ceremony and rites when a child is first named. Society rejects the creature so completely that he doesn't receive a name. I find it interesting that the creature doesn't name himself. I would think that he would come up with something to refer to himself as.
The word "monster" can be defined as a hideous and terrifying creature of extraordinary stature. Mary Shelly may have used the word "creature" to describe Victor's creation rather than other negative connotative terms such as "monster" to allow the readers to decide for themselves what this being should be labeled by analyzing the events of its life. The creature was given its title "monster" by the society that rejected him and by its own creator Victor who conveyed equal contempt for his creation. In agreement to Eriel's comment, Victor and the rest of human society are the true monsters in the novel. Through their constant repudiation, they became responsible for teaching the creature how to be a monster, rather than accepting it into their culture and providing proper nurture for it.
Children view things very single-mindedly sometimes. Monsters are physical, scary beasts to look at. Adults grow to be (hopefully) more complex, and monsters morph into things with evil purposes, devoid of humane thought and values. A monster could be anything from a murderer in prison to an inherently evil concept. They range in levels of abstraction. People's perceptions change with their maturation. Did Victor create an inherently evil concept? Perhaps, to some the morality behind the creature's birth was evil, but in regards to the actual events that transpired, Victor created a physical human being, made of flesh and blood. Just because this creature appears deformed doesn't necessarily characterize him as a monster - that would be the childish viewpoint. Victor is an adult who created a being that developed monstrous qualities because he was not taught by his parent. He gleaned negative characteristics from the unfortunate events following his creation. Victor created a creature, rather than a monster. The monster within the creature came out because Victor, monstrously, refused the responsibility of parenthood. It's rather confusing, but ultimately, Victor was truly monstrous, not because he created a human being, but because he denied his duty towards his offspring. and the creature develops monstrous qualities because children take after their parents.
A monster is something of unusual size that is usually ugly and frightening. Victor is responsible for naming him "monster." He uses this name because he is ashamed and afraid of what he created and this is his excuse for the way his creation is. He's a "monster" and in Victor's mind there's nothing he could have done to prevent that. However, Victor is the real "monster" because he just abandoned his creation to fend for himself. He didn't attempt to teach him anything on survival, morals, or self-protection. Therefore, there were many things he could have done in order to prevent his "creation" from turing into a "monster."
ReplyDeleteShelly refers to the creation as "creature" or "creation" because that's all he really is. A "creature" that was never taught how not to become a "monster."
As Bailey said in regards to the physical definition, a monster is a creature of unusual size with frighteningly hideous features. Another description of a monster references their actions, which would be horrific and cruel. The Creature Victor created may naively be esteemed a monster based on his different exterior, however, despite the Creature's lack of guidance in his life, he maintained a somewhat civil nature towards humanity, which he was utterly envious of. Because the Creature deliberately attempts to eschew the "monstrous" nature from his own actions and try to gain solace in the life he lives, Shelley never esteems the Creature as "monster" for she does not believe he is so. Victor's scorn towards his own creation - as well as societies contempt - engendered the detrimental title for the Creature, which genuinely makes THEM the real monsters - both society and Victor for they deluded a Creature of potentially pure nature into believing he was something wholly wicked.
ReplyDelete@Eriel: I think your assessment here is quite accurate and apt. The real monster in the story (according even to Shelley) is Victor. He creates and then abandons and ignores. He is far more guilty, I think in our assessment, than his creature. The creature then is labeled "monster" for his actions which can directly be attributed to Victor's callousness toward him. Good points.
ReplyDeleteI actually said something about this elsewhere before I saw this question! I'll reiterate and elaborate.
ReplyDeleteI think that Shelley believes Victor's creation to be a product of nurture, rather than nature, and thus cannot inherently be a monster. Creation implies reverence, perfection, love and adoration, although you could also argue that by calling it a creation she is referring to it in the most neutral term available, next to "thing." It is the one thing that is indisputable about the creature: that it was created. Both Victor and society call it a monster because they fear an hate it. It does not fit the standards the society has set up for acceptability, and thus anything outside of those standards( murderers and criminals included) fit into the description of monster.
I would say that what everyone else has said before is true, that Victor is the true monster, but I would also that society is a monster. One could argue that society created Victor and that he, too, cannot be inherently monstrous. Society and culture implants ideas and allows them to ferment, and although it is not an excuse for behavior, it may be cited as a cause.
I think that Eriel is on to something when she says that a monster can also be defined by their actions. I think that it is very myopic to assume that a monster is defined solely by physical characteristics. Hitler was a monster in every sense of the word, yet he looked no different than you and me. Defining a monster requires us to identify the way that they treat humanity.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why Shelley never refers to the creature as a monster is because she recognizes that merely looking different than the rest of us does not make one a monster. Even when the creature is acting out violently, Shelley does not call it a monster because she recognizes that the creature is not at fault. The term monster arises from Victor's disgust towards this creature, but his disgust is not only misplaced, it is what makes him the monster.
If you read the chapters where the creature tells his story, you realize that the creature came into this world as a metaphorical baby. He did not know evil, he merely learned based on what he was surrounded with. Victor's immediate rejection of the creature forces him into believing that he is a monster. This is what makes Victor the true monster. Instead of trying to help incorporate his innocent creature into society, he turns his back on him as if to ensure, if not endorse, societal violence against the creature.
People may object to this saying that the creature was clearly a monster, he murdered innocent people, but this blame would be misplaced. The creature did not come into the world intending evil. In fact, the creature even says that he did not like violence, and he was appalled on several occasions when people treated him as a monster. The person who is at fault for the creatures violent actions is the person who brought him into this world, and then abandoned him so that the only lifestyle he ever learned was one of pain, misery, suffering, and violence. That person is Victor.
I disagree with almost everyone on their definition of the word "monster". I think what monster truly signifies is an individual that strays from the norms society has set. Every society has set standards that they accept as normal. Any alter behaviors are considered inappropriate. However, when I look closely to these standards in some cultures, I am disgusted and find their way of life and traditions to be monstrous. For example, there's an Indian tribe that breaks the noses of all newborn babies. The Chinese used to, and still might, wrap the feet of girls during their growth stages to ensure the palms of the feet did not grow. This "enhanced" their feminine walk and allowed them to walk like a "true" lady. These traditions, when looked at in our society, are seen as monstrous and inhumanely cruel acts. Just a thought I had while reading this question and everyones answers.
ReplyDelete@ Jose:
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that we label people monsters if they stray from the norms of OUR society? For example, it seems like your definition would prevent us from labeling slave drivers monsters at the time because they were just following the norms of the society.
In reference to your examples, I don't think that you disagree with our definitions at all based on your example. Our argument (or at least mine) is that these actions are monstrous and ought to be treated as such because of the way in which the degrade the notion of human rights. Regardless of whether or not there are societal norms in favor of taking such actions, how does that make someone any less monstrous?
A monster is usually something or someone who does terrible things in the eyes of man. Many times bad looks go with it in the definition. Shelley refers to Victor's creation as "creature" and "creation" because it was a creation of Victor and creature because it may have human qualities, but is considered inhuman to mankind.The people responsible for naming it a monster are Victor and Walton. Victor calls him a monster when he meets him on the mountain, and Walton calls him a monster when he meets him in the cabin of the ship. In my assessment, the real monster is Victor, if he had not simply raised the creature, or comply with the creature later, Victor's family would not have died. Also when the creature kills the first few family members, Victor does absolutely nothing about it except weep about it all the time.
ReplyDeleteThe word monster is defined as any creature so ugly or monstrous as to frighten people according to dictionary.com. I believe that Shelley refers to Victor’s creation as creature because I do not believe that Shelley thinks that Victor’s creation is a monster. Although he is deformed and fits the definition of “monster,” I do not think that she wants the reader to view the creation as the monster but Victor. The person responsible for naming the creature monster would be Victor. Victor names his creation a monster because of the monster’s appearance at first but then refers to the monster’s killing streak. In my opinion I think that the real monster is Victor. For Victor to abandon his creation just because of its appearance tells you something about his character. Victor doesn’t even take time to understand or get to know his creation thus leaving his creation to fend for itself and learn the basic feelings of love and companionship. It is Victor’s fault that the creature turned out the way it did. The nature vs. nurture theory could definitely be applied to this story. If Victor had nurtured and cared for the creature I am positive that the creature would have turned out completely different. The fact is that Victor was based only on the superficial aspect of life, reflecting the views of society as well.
ReplyDeleteTaylor Brown
Monster is a typically large, ugly, and frightening creature. I think that Victor is responsible for giving his creation this name, because it seems as though he feels ashamed of what he created and how hideous it was. I feel like Victor is the real monster of the story. He isn't a "large, ugly, and frightening" person, but the way he handles the whole monster situation is cruel. He allows the monster to run about and doesn't take responsibility for his creation's actions causing an innocent (Justine) to die. He allows himself to neglect his creation of love and care that he received as a child.
ReplyDeleteWhen i think of monster i think of an ugly, big, maybe deformed creature who's only plan is to hunt you down. The "monster" created by Shelly i feel has a sort of innocence to him, in thinking that he only wants to have a friend. He doesn't want to be lonely. Which, isn't that what everyone wants? So i think Eriel is right in saying what leads him to be a true "monster" is his actions in what he feels of loneliness. He wasn't taught how to react to someone who treats him wrong. He does what's in our "human nature" which is to have it out for the person who does you wrong and do whatever you can to destroy that person. In my opinion the "real monster" would be Victor for not taking full responsibility for the monster and for not honoring what he said he would do by giving him a companion. Yes, maybe in the end they would have children and there would be many monsters created but he still could have taken him in, instead of running from him and destroying the monsters last hope.
ReplyDeleteI would just like to throw in a question..Why does Shelley never name the creature? Was that on purpose or was that just because he was abandoned?
ReplyDeleteWhat are your thoughts?
Josh - I don't know, Hitler's mustache was pretty monstrous...
ReplyDeleteTo Shelby - That is an interesting point. I think she doesn't name the creature to further accentuate his complete and total isolation from society. In many cultures and religions, for example, Hinduism, the giving of a name is a very big deal. Biblical names have meanings and characters in the Bible are given new names with new meanings to represent their actions. Abraham, Sarah, for example. (I would just like to note that Sarah means princess, which I find appropriate.) In the Hindu faith, there is a ceremony and rites when a child is first named. Society rejects the creature so completely that he doesn't receive a name.
I find it interesting that the creature doesn't name himself. I would think that he would come up with something to refer to himself as.
The word "monster" can be defined as a hideous and terrifying creature of extraordinary stature. Mary Shelly may have used the word "creature" to describe Victor's creation rather than other negative connotative terms such as "monster" to allow the readers to decide for themselves what this being should be labeled by analyzing the events of its life. The creature was given its title "monster" by the society that rejected him and by its own creator Victor who conveyed equal contempt for his creation. In agreement to Eriel's comment, Victor and the rest of human society are the true monsters in the novel. Through their constant repudiation, they became responsible for teaching the creature how to be a monster, rather than accepting it into their culture and providing proper nurture for it.
ReplyDeleteChildren view things very single-mindedly sometimes. Monsters are physical, scary beasts to look at. Adults grow to be (hopefully) more complex, and monsters morph into things with evil purposes, devoid of humane thought and values. A monster could be anything from a murderer in prison to an inherently evil concept. They range in levels of abstraction. People's perceptions change with their maturation.
ReplyDeleteDid Victor create an inherently evil concept? Perhaps, to some the morality behind the creature's birth was evil, but in regards to the actual events that transpired, Victor created a physical human being, made of flesh and blood. Just because this creature appears deformed doesn't necessarily characterize him as a monster - that would be the childish viewpoint. Victor is an adult who created a being that developed monstrous qualities because he was not taught by his parent. He gleaned negative characteristics from the unfortunate events following his creation. Victor created a creature, rather than a monster. The monster within the creature came out because Victor, monstrously, refused the responsibility of parenthood. It's rather confusing, but ultimately, Victor was truly monstrous, not because he created a human being, but because he denied his duty towards his offspring. and the creature develops monstrous qualities because children take after their parents.