Is the creature's demand for a female companion a valid request? Examine the pros and cons of Victor's compliance. Consider evidence provided by both Victor and the creature.
I believe it just depends what point of view you choose to look at it from. As far as I stand on the subject, I believe Victor was right in not creating a companion for the monster. Victor was a good person. I believe he tried to be the best person he could be. (Sure, he had flaws, but all of us do). And in his mind, Victor did not believe this was right. So he did what he believed was the right thing - he destroyed the companion he was creating for the monster. But there were definitely moments that showed Victor really did have a lot of compassion towards his creature. Before he had decided to destroy the companion and while he was creating it, those were moments that showed how he really wanted to make the creature happy, regardless of how evil he did think of him. But while I was reading the through those moments, I thought Victor was so stupid to be creating a companion for the monster when he was thinking of what a horrible act he was committing towards the entire world. Why would you do all that work in order to make ONE creature happy, when you could just not perform that act and save the entire world? Regardless of what the outcome actually would have been, THIS was what HE believed would have happened. So when he deiced to destroy the companion I agreed with Victor and his actions, and thought that was pretty masochistic! Especially considering his actions afterwards after the creature threatened to destroy his life and the people that were important to him; he stayed with his decision.
However, with that said, I do see the creature's point of view. I get his thought process, want, and need for a companion. But the creature has only had so much life experience with the world and himself as a being. Honestly, I don't even think he knew enough about himself to have made those types of promises to Victor when he was bargaining with him to create a companion for him. I do believe that's how he truly felt in the moment, but as we saw in the long run, he really didn't have much control over his actions when conflicts were presented to him and actually did kill people as a result of his anger.
i semi agree with christina, in the fact that it was technically correct for Victor to destroy the creation and the fact that in doing it he was being quiet masochistic ha. he fallowed through with what he believed was right.
butttt what i wonder is, if he had created the monster a mate would he have saved the lives of all his loved ones?
or what would have happened if Victor had created the monster a mate and she had turned on him also? the monster never considered this when he was telling Victor to create him a mate.
but with out that considered, do i believe that the monster wanting a mate was a valid request? well if you consider in though the eyes of the monster well then yea it would seem like a valid request because as he points out Victor created him because he was lonely so why doesn't the monster deserve the chance to be happy and not lonely anymore? but the monster contradicts him self because he is telling victor that if he creates him a mate then they would be good and never hurt another person but then he bluntly states that if Victor doesn't comply with his request then he will kill every one he loves. showing that he cant just be a good person he is too willing to kill with out remorse.
When I look at the creatures demand for a female companion I view it as not a valid request. When I look at the pro's to make this female creature the only benefit to making this creature is that Victor and his loved one's might be spared from further torment. However, the cons of the creation of another creature far out weigh the benefits. For example, Victor is considering creating this female creature when all he knows about his original creation is that he has committed multiple murders and atrocious acts. So the creature may present a logical argument in the fact that he does deserve some companionship, and that this loneliness may have cause the creature to commit some of his crimes, but this does not excuse the fact that he committed the crimes and this all in Victors mind as he makes the decision to not create another creature. This all validates the decision to not make another creature in Victors mind, and that is the ultimate and final decision.
I address the effects that this would have on the overall novel in the question that deals with what I thought of the book.
But, more specifically, I think that there are three main problems, substantively, with Victor refusing to provide the creature with a mate. Note: while I think that it would have changed the meaning of the novel, I believe that anyone in Victor's situation should have complied with the request of the creature.
1. Reciprocity - as the creatures points out in the book "Shall each man...find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone?" (149 in my text). What about the creature makes him deserving of being alone? His figure? That is not his fault. His violence? That was merely a result of his social conditioning. Nothing about him demands that he be alone, and yet, he is not given an equal nor fair chance of ever finding love. This problem of non-reciprocity could be resolved were Victor to make him a creature like him.
2. Restitution - the reason that the creature is the way that he is, is because Victor essentially forced him into that lifestyle by ignoring him and scorning him. Since Victor allowed for this if not compelled the creature to act like this, he owes the creature some form of restitution so that the creature can learn what love is, and how society should function. This need for restitution generates an obligation that Victor owes to the creature.
3. Cost-Benefit Analysis - The cost of creating another creature is Victor's time. The benefit of creating another creature is that peace and normalcy is restored. Victor might object to this saying that the new creature could be violent, but the original creature was only violent because Victor made him that way, so that objection is avoidable. Therefore, on a purely utilitarian calculus, there is an obvious reason to creature a mate for the creature.
I don't think that you have pointed out a contradiction at all. The creature says that he will remain violent until he gets what he wants, and the moment he gets a mate, he will no longer remain violent. That's not a contradiction, that's cause and effect.
You say: "he cant just be a good person he is too willing to kill with out remorse."
But, that does not deny the fact that he promised that he was willing to give up killing people and consolidate himself, and his mate to peace. Now, obviously there is a question as to whether or not he intends to keep that promise, but there is no reason in the novel to believe that he would not. In fact, all of the times he is causing pain for Victor, he is fulfilling that initial promise, which means that we should err on the side of believing him.
You also say: " if he had created the monster a mate would he have saved the lives of all his loved ones? "
I have a question. Is this question assuming he created the mate at the same time as he created the creature?
Let's assume that is the assumption being made. I think the answer to your question is then - it depends. If the creature had been born with a mate, it is possible that he may have found displeasure in some other aspect in life, and requested that Victor fix that problem, in which case it might not have saved the lives of his loved ones.
Assuming your question meant that the creature would have received a mate after his request, then I think the answer is yes, the lives of his loved ones would have been saved. There is no reason to believe the creature would not have been true to his word (see previous post) in which case the violence would have ceased, and Victor could have retired happily with Elizabeth.
I think your analysis of the situation, while somewhat compelling, ignores issues that resolve this question.
Your argument that the creature does not deserve a mate because he was violent rest on a few assumptions:
a) that the creature was intentionally violent b) that his actions justified eternal condemnation and isolation c) that the creature did not deserve a mate based on Victor's point of view.
I will deal with these briefly in reverse order.
C) your answer to this question does not answer the question the prompt asks. You say Victor decided the creature did not deserve a mate, but why do YOU think that the creature didn't deserve a mate?
B) The violence committed by the creature did not justify eternal isolation. The extent of that logic would justify killing everyone that had relationships with Victor since he enabled the creature in the first place. But that conclusion is inconsistent with your answer because that would seem to fly in the face of peace that seems to underlie your answer.
A) The creature was not intentionally violent. He was merely reacting to a) the social conditioning that he received as a "new born" and b) the way in which he was treated by Victor. The violence was not an action, it was a justified reaction.
Finally, it is unclear to my why "the creature not deserving a mate" (your conclusion) outweighs the benefit of sparing "torment." These seem to be operating under two different mechanisms for evaluating actions. Your conclusion seems to functioning under a framework that evaluates whether or not the ends of an action were reached in a just manner, which you indicate they were not. But, the argument you are weighing that against questions whether or not the best end result is produced.
The problem here is that it is impossible to say that one outweighs the other because you are using two frameworks that are incommensurable.
The creature's demand for an Eve is a second main struggle presented to Victor. He presents a fairly good case that he will leave with his new love and not return to harm anyone. It will end his destructive rule. Several good arguments are made against this case, however.
1. "She might become ten thousand times more malignant". 2. The monster said he would leave if he got a mate, "she had not". 3. "They might even hate each other." They might think one another ugly. 4. They might produce children, creating a race of daemons.
Ultimately, I look to Genesis, seeing that even God's creation got lonely and needed a woman. It is a good argument that Adam needed Eve. Depending on who you side with in philosophy might better answer this question. I believe humans are inherently evil and thus, the monster was no different then a human and might deserve a mate. If though, you believe he was a wretched being and side with Victor, it seems plausible that Victor makes a poor choice in complying with the monster.
Yes, the creature's demand for a female companion is valid. The creature gives specific reasons to Victor as to why this will be the best way for everyone. Even Victor gives reasons why it wouldn't by asking what's to stop the creature from killing people and from making more creatures such as himself that would be just as violent. Yet Victor is wrong to say no at first (then later destroy his half-finished work) because even though the creature vowed to kill all mankind, the creature had only killed two people over a span of months since that vow. He killed them out of uncontrollable rage at the time but he has shown to have control because a creature without control would have killed Victor instantly and not think of a peaceful way to put their enmity aside.
The fact that the monster is DEMANDING for a female companion is what is wrong, he does have every right to ask his creator for another his kind, but to demand and threaten his creator is part of what makes this wrong. The monster's argument for his companion is compelling and even has Victor agreeing, but the side of the monster that Victor has yet to really see for himself is the violent and inhuman part.
Pros: Assuming the monster actually does what he says he will, there will be no more threat in Victor's life. The monster does deserve at least the smallest bit of happiness from his creator.
Cons: There will be another monster in the world, threatening mankind. The monsters could easily fight and cause even more problems than one.
I believe that Victor was right in not continuing to make a female companion for his first monster.
Yes I most definitely feel that the creature's want for a female companion is a valid one. On one hand you can look at the fact that everyone wants to feel acceptance and because of the creature being an outcast, having someone just like him would help him feel like he fits in with at least one person in life. Unfortunately in contrast if Victor had gone through with the creation of another monster, it would be history repeating and just another creature Victor would be struggling to run away from.
I can understand why the creature would want a companion just like him. He wouldn't have to worry about being judged or turned away from by this other being. She would be just like him. Not only does he want a friend but he wants somebody to love. Somebody to share the rest of his existence with. However, for Victor, it would be like repeating a part of his life that he dreads. He regrets creating the first being and doesn't want to have to deal with a second one. If the first creature goes back on his promise to leave in peace with his new companion, the damage could be worse. For Victor himself, and others around him.
but what about if this mate had rejected him? then being as he is so willing to kill do you not think that he would return to his old ways and become violent and kill again? even though he promised he would not as long as Victor creates him a companion?
and with my question of whether or not Victor would of saved his family and friends from death by creating the creature another mate, i did mean at the time of the creature requesting a mate.
When regarding the monster's different reaction to a partner or companion, a whole host of possibilities, not just three, are possible. What he would have done is questionable, because up until this point in the book, the moral/ethical standing of the actual monster has not been clearly established. He is violent, an element that derives from his anger and pent up emotions of abandonment. Yet he is logical, both through the study of past historical findings and navigating himself through the world through his eyes. He discovers nature himself; declares his creator doomed himself; he develops his five senses himself; and finally, he establishes his own opinion himself without parameters that influence this opinion, be it standards, limits, or expectations. What stifles me is that the monster's ability to logically make sense of the world throughout his growth calls for sympathy rather than disgust. It is a truly romantic feeling that is implied; mixed emotions that enlighten and inspire.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe it just depends what point of view you choose to look at it from. As far as I stand on the subject, I believe Victor was right in not creating a companion for the monster. Victor was a good person. I believe he tried to be the best person he could be. (Sure, he had flaws, but all of us do). And in his mind, Victor did not believe this was right. So he did what he believed was the right thing - he destroyed the companion he was creating for the monster. But there were definitely moments that showed Victor really did have a lot of compassion towards his creature. Before he had decided to destroy the companion and while he was creating it, those were moments that showed how he really wanted to make the creature happy, regardless of how evil he did think of him. But while I was reading the through those moments, I thought Victor was so stupid to be creating a companion for the monster when he was thinking of what a horrible act he was committing towards the entire world. Why would you do all that work in order to make ONE creature happy, when you could just not perform that act and save the entire world? Regardless of what the outcome actually would have been, THIS was what HE believed would have happened. So when he deiced to destroy the companion I agreed with Victor and his actions, and thought that was pretty masochistic! Especially considering his actions afterwards after the creature threatened to destroy his life and the people that were important to him; he stayed with his decision.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with that said, I do see the creature's point of view. I get his thought process, want, and need for a companion. But the creature has only had so much life experience with the world and himself as a being. Honestly, I don't even think he knew enough about himself to have made those types of promises to Victor when he was bargaining with him to create a companion for him. I do believe that's how he truly felt in the moment, but as we saw in the long run, he really didn't have much control over his actions when conflicts were presented to him and actually did kill people as a result of his anger.
i semi agree with christina, in the fact that it was technically correct for Victor to destroy the creation and the fact that in doing it he was being quiet masochistic ha. he fallowed through with what he believed was right.
ReplyDeletebutttt what i wonder is, if he had created the monster a mate would he have saved the lives of all his loved ones?
or what would have happened if Victor had created the monster a mate and she had turned on him also? the monster never considered this when he was telling Victor to create him a mate.
but with out that considered, do i believe that the monster wanting a mate was a valid request? well if you consider in though the eyes of the monster well then yea it would seem like a valid request because as he points out Victor created him because he was lonely so why doesn't the monster deserve the chance to be happy and not lonely anymore?
but the monster contradicts him self because he is telling victor that if he creates him a mate then they would be good and never hurt another person but then he bluntly states that if Victor doesn't comply with his request then he will kill every one he loves. showing that he cant just be a good person he is too willing to kill with out remorse.
When I look at the creatures demand for a female companion I view it as not a valid request. When I look at the pro's to make this female creature the only benefit to making this creature is that Victor and his loved one's might be spared from further torment. However, the cons of the creation of another creature far out weigh the benefits. For example, Victor is considering creating this female creature when all he knows about his original creation is that he has committed multiple murders and atrocious acts. So the creature may present a logical argument in the fact that he does deserve some companionship, and that this loneliness may have cause the creature to commit some of his crimes, but this does not excuse the fact that he committed the crimes and this all in Victors mind as he makes the decision to not create another creature. This all validates the decision to not make another creature in Victors mind, and that is the ultimate and final decision.
ReplyDeleteI address the effects that this would have on the overall novel in the question that deals with what I thought of the book.
ReplyDeleteBut, more specifically, I think that there are three main problems, substantively, with Victor refusing to provide the creature with a mate. Note: while I think that it would have changed the meaning of the novel, I believe that anyone in Victor's situation should have complied with the request of the creature.
1. Reciprocity - as the creatures points out in the book "Shall each man...find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone?" (149 in my text). What about the creature makes him deserving of being alone? His figure? That is not his fault. His violence? That was merely a result of his social conditioning. Nothing about him demands that he be alone, and yet, he is not given an equal nor fair chance of ever finding love. This problem of non-reciprocity could be resolved were Victor to make him a creature like him.
2. Restitution - the reason that the creature is the way that he is, is because Victor essentially forced him into that lifestyle by ignoring him and scorning him. Since Victor allowed for this if not compelled the creature to act like this, he owes the creature some form of restitution so that the creature can learn what love is, and how society should function. This need for restitution generates an obligation that Victor owes to the creature.
3. Cost-Benefit Analysis - The cost of creating another creature is Victor's time. The benefit of creating another creature is that peace and normalcy is restored. Victor might object to this saying that the new creature could be violent, but the original creature was only violent because Victor made him that way, so that objection is avoidable. Therefore, on a purely utilitarian calculus, there is an obvious reason to creature a mate for the creature.
@Jessica:
ReplyDeleteI don't think that you have pointed out a contradiction at all. The creature says that he will remain violent until he gets what he wants, and the moment he gets a mate, he will no longer remain violent. That's not a contradiction, that's cause and effect.
You say: "he cant just be a good person he is too willing to kill with out remorse."
But, that does not deny the fact that he promised that he was willing to give up killing people and consolidate himself, and his mate to peace. Now, obviously there is a question as to whether or not he intends to keep that promise, but there is no reason in the novel to believe that he would not. In fact, all of the times he is causing pain for Victor, he is fulfilling that initial promise, which means that we should err on the side of believing him.
You also say: " if he had created the monster a mate would he have saved the lives of all his loved ones? "
I have a question. Is this question assuming he created the mate at the same time as he created the creature?
Let's assume that is the assumption being made. I think the answer to your question is then - it depends. If the creature had been born with a mate, it is possible that he may have found displeasure in some other aspect in life, and requested that Victor fix that problem, in which case it might not have saved the lives of his loved ones.
Assuming your question meant that the creature would have received a mate after his request, then I think the answer is yes, the lives of his loved ones would have been saved. There is no reason to believe the creature would not have been true to his word (see previous post) in which case the violence would have ceased, and Victor could have retired happily with Elizabeth.
@Jeff:
ReplyDeleteI think your analysis of the situation, while somewhat compelling, ignores issues that resolve this question.
Your argument that the creature does not deserve a mate because he was violent rest on a few assumptions:
a) that the creature was intentionally violent
b) that his actions justified eternal condemnation and isolation
c) that the creature did not deserve a mate based on Victor's point of view.
I will deal with these briefly in reverse order.
C) your answer to this question does not answer the question the prompt asks. You say Victor decided the creature did not deserve a mate, but why do YOU think that the creature didn't deserve a mate?
B) The violence committed by the creature did not justify eternal isolation. The extent of that logic would justify killing everyone that had relationships with Victor since he enabled the creature in the first place. But that conclusion is inconsistent with your answer because that would seem to fly in the face of peace that seems to underlie your answer.
A) The creature was not intentionally violent. He was merely reacting to a) the social conditioning that he received as a "new born" and b) the way in which he was treated by Victor. The violence was not an action, it was a justified reaction.
Finally, it is unclear to my why "the creature not deserving a mate" (your conclusion) outweighs the benefit of sparing "torment." These seem to be operating under two different mechanisms for evaluating actions. Your conclusion seems to functioning under a framework that evaluates whether or not the ends of an action were reached in a just manner, which you indicate they were not. But, the argument you are weighing that against questions whether or not the best end result is produced.
The problem here is that it is impossible to say that one outweighs the other because you are using two frameworks that are incommensurable.
The creature's demand for an Eve is a second main struggle presented to Victor. He presents a fairly good case that he will leave with his new love and not return to harm anyone. It will end his destructive rule. Several good arguments are made against this case, however.
ReplyDelete1. "She might become ten thousand times more malignant".
2. The monster said he would leave if he got a mate, "she had not".
3. "They might even hate each other." They might think one another ugly.
4. They might produce children, creating a race of daemons.
Ultimately, I look to Genesis, seeing that even God's creation got lonely and needed a woman. It is a good argument that Adam needed Eve. Depending on who you side with in philosophy might better answer this question. I believe humans are inherently evil and thus, the monster was no different then a human and might deserve a mate. If though, you believe he was a wretched being and side with Victor, it seems plausible that Victor makes a poor choice in complying with the monster.
Yes, the creature's demand for a female companion is valid. The creature gives specific reasons to Victor as to why this will be the best way for everyone. Even Victor gives reasons why it wouldn't by asking what's to stop the creature from killing people and from making more creatures such as himself that would be just as violent. Yet Victor is wrong to say no at first (then later destroy his half-finished work) because even though the creature vowed to kill all mankind, the creature had only killed two people over a span of months since that vow. He killed them out of uncontrollable rage at the time but he has shown to have control because a creature without control would have killed Victor instantly and not think of a peaceful way to put their enmity aside.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the monster is DEMANDING for a female companion is what is wrong, he does have every right to ask his creator for another his kind, but to demand and threaten his creator is part of what makes this wrong. The monster's argument for his companion is compelling and even has Victor agreeing, but the side of the monster that Victor has yet to really see for himself is the violent and inhuman part.
ReplyDeletePros:
Assuming the monster actually does what he says he will, there will be no more threat in Victor's life.
The monster does deserve at least the smallest bit of happiness from his creator.
Cons:
There will be another monster in the world, threatening mankind.
The monsters could easily fight and cause even more problems than one.
I believe that Victor was right in not continuing to make a female companion for his first monster.
Yes I most definitely feel that the creature's want for a female companion is a valid one. On one hand you can look at the fact that everyone wants to feel acceptance and because of the creature being an outcast, having someone just like him would help him feel like he fits in with at least one person in life. Unfortunately in contrast if Victor had gone through with the creation of another monster, it would be history repeating and just another creature Victor would be struggling to run away from.
ReplyDeleteI can understand why the creature would want a companion just like him. He wouldn't have to worry about being judged or turned away from by this other being. She would be just like him. Not only does he want a friend but he wants somebody to love. Somebody to share the rest of his existence with.
ReplyDeleteHowever, for Victor, it would be like repeating a part of his life that he dreads. He regrets creating the first being and doesn't want to have to deal with a second one. If the first creature goes back on his promise to leave in peace with his new companion, the damage could be worse. For Victor himself, and others around him.
@ josh
ReplyDeletebut what about if this mate had rejected him? then being as he is so willing to kill do you not think that he would return to his old ways and become violent and kill again? even though he promised he would not as long as Victor creates him a companion?
and with my question of whether or not Victor would of saved his family and friends from death by creating the creature another mate, i did mean at the time of the creature requesting a mate.
When regarding the monster's different reaction to a partner or companion, a whole host of possibilities, not just three, are possible. What he would have done is questionable, because up until this point in the book, the moral/ethical standing of the actual monster has not been clearly established. He is violent, an element that derives from his anger and pent up emotions of abandonment. Yet he is logical, both through the study of past historical findings and navigating himself through the world through his eyes. He discovers nature himself; declares his creator doomed himself; he develops his five senses himself; and finally, he establishes his own opinion himself without parameters that influence this opinion, be it standards, limits, or expectations. What stifles me is that the monster's ability to logically make sense of the world throughout his growth calls for sympathy rather than disgust. It is a truly romantic feeling that is implied; mixed emotions that enlighten and inspire.
ReplyDelete