After watching the destruction of his female companion, the creature makes an eloquent defense and vows Victor will "repent of the injuries [he] inflicts." Is the creature justified in his feelings? Why or why not? What is Shelley's purpose in illustrating this defense?
I'm not sure what you mean by justified in his feelings?
ReplyDeleteWell, Victor takes the life of the creature's mate. Then would the creature be "justified" in doing the same to Victor?? What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI do think you can justify with the creature and his feelings, in a way. After all, he saw the only hope of ever having a companion crushed right before his eyes. That would surface some deep hurt and resentment.
ReplyDeleteNow after this took place, if we seen some more sympathetic insight into the monster's feelings before the end of the novel, I definitely could have sympathized with him COMPLETELY, but because we really didn't I have a hard time doing that. All we saw was evil. Still though, regardless of what insight we got into the creature's mind, I do believe this moment was what ultimately ruined him, and where he lost all hope in humanity. So I can sympathize with him because of this. He was still holding onto some hope no matter how small, and then Victor crushed it. Victor was completely evil in his eyes. I do think that mindset is pretty ignorant, but can still be justified because this entire mindset could be viewed as Victor's fault entirely.
Revenge should never be a thought process even imagined. Had the creature just ceased his actions and sought out a path of forgiveness towards his creator would suffice. Instead of rebelling against his master, he should have joined him in his journeys.
ReplyDeleteThe true path of being accepted into society was through the creator. Just as children are raised and introduced to society through their parents, the creature should have sought out this norm. The creature was abandoned to fend off on his own, but he managed to educate himself sufficiently to survive. With this education and knowledge, he could pursue the possibility of persuading his master into allowing him to blend with society. How many times have first impressions been alleviated with the testimony of a trusted character or a friend? Justification was not the process to take with this situation.
I don't think the creature is justified by doing the same to Victor. I think initially, because of his immediate reaction to anger, he thinks it logical to justify Victors decision by taking away his female companion. This is another example of the creature acting as a child. When we are young, are initial reaction to a conflict is to compensate through justification. Ex: You kick me, I'll kick you back. This would seem logical, if we were not taught the consequences of reacting in anger. In the last chapter, when the creature sees Victor dead and pale, he realizes that his reaction toward his anger has caused him greater remorse and guilt than Victor should ever feel for refusing to create a female companion. He says "blasted as thou wert, my agony was still superior to thine, for the bitter sting of remorse will not cease to rankle in my wounds..."In saying this, I think the creature finally learns about cause and effect and realizes (too late) that he would never have been satisfied even if he had killed all of Victors friends and family...justification is not possible through retaliation. However, conflict management is something that develops and cannot be apparent as a baby (the creature)
ReplyDeleteI don't think the creature is justified by doing the same to Victor. I think initially, because of his immediate reaction to anger, he thinks it logical to justify Victors decision by taking away his female companion. This is another example of the creature acting as a child. When we are young, are initial reaction to a conflict is to compensate through justification. Ex: You kick me, I'll kick you back. This would seem logical, if we were not taught the consequences of reacting in anger. In the last chapter, when the creature sees Victor dead and pale, he realizes that his reaction toward his anger has caused him greater remorse and guilt than Victor should ever feel for refusing to create a female companion. He says "blasted as thou wert, my agony was still superior to thine, for the bitter sting of remorse will not cease to rankle in my wounds..."In saying this, I think the creature finally learns about cause and effect and realizes (too late) that he would never have been satisfied even if he had killed all of Victors friends and family...justification is not possible through retaliation. However, conflict management is something that develops and cannot be apparent as a baby (the creature)
ReplyDeleteI think an important thing to realize is that before this action the monster had never maliciously planned his attacks- rather, he acted on impulse. Keeping this in mind when asking if the monster was justified, I believe the monster was not justified but did what he believed was right. The only moral compass the monster had ever experienced was based on what he observed from the cottage next to him. Regardless of if he did learn from them, in no way was he raised from birth with these characteristics embedded into his heart and mind. Therefore, I believe the term “ justified” would fit what the monster did. The monster had pledged to turn his life around, leaving Victor’s life forever, and begin his own, on a single condition. The single condition of having a companion was destroyed in front of him. As Christina said, the resentment value alone would bring forth these emotions. I almost am empathetic towards the monster because he just wanted that one thing, a companion, and he was not able to have one. This part of this story created sympathy towards the monster I had not truly felt before then. While evil and inhumane by societies standards, I feel Shelly’s purpose was to exchange the label of “monstrous” from the monster, and placed it in the hands of Victor. While the monster did not have an excuse to do this, when his companion was destroyed, he found no reason to press further into integrating into society. In conclusion, while I don’t believe in the justification of hurting Victor just because he was hurt, I believe Shelly wants you to empathize with the monster and realize he cannot be held fully responsible because of his background.
ReplyDeleteDespite what almost everyone else has said, I feel that the creature is completely justified in his feelings. I believe this because throughout the novel, all the monster wants in life is to be accepted, to have a purpose. However, through multiple attempts to gain acceptance into society, he is continually denied this sense of acceptance he so desires. He tries so hard and puts so much effort into learning their language and trying to be like them, just so he can taste acceptance. He even comes very close to attaining this goal when he tries to befriend the blind old man of the de Lacey family in chapter 15 who could not judge him on his appearance, but is denied this by the rest of the family who instantly reject him. And finally, whenever the monster has the smallest of shreds of hope to be accepted (through having a companion like him), Victor goes against his word and completely destroys that hope. In this way, I believe that the monster is absolutely justified in his feelings, because Victor takes away his last hope of gaining what he has so desperately sought after his entire life. Additionally, I believe that Shelley's purpose in having the monster state this defense is just to materialize how the monster truly feels about what Victor did and how he crushed his hopes and dreams.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Christina when you said that you can justify with the creature and his feelings because of how he saw the only hope of ever having a companion crushed right before his eyes, (pg.165 The wretch saw me destroy the creature on whose future existence he depended for happiness , and, with a howl of devilish despair and revenge, withdrew.) this passage enlightens us using foreshadowing with the word use of revenge, the creatures revenge here is the death of "Elizabeth", killing Victors only joy, love, and companion right before his eyes.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't agree with the creature's decision to exact revenge upon Victor's head, it is completely understandable due to the extreme neglect the creature suffered due to Victor's carelessness. Of course he wants to destroy Victor's family! Who Victor destroyed on the operating table was more than just the creature's wife. While she was one body, she represented all the future children and grandchildren and eventual family line the creature and she would have borne. One person is a whole lot more important if an entire generation is dependent upon their survival. Victor defeated a race in one swift motion, and I think the monster is reacting to more than just grief over one loss. He's losing the possibility of making an imprint in the world, which all of us desire deep within. Who wants to enter the world and leave it unchanged?
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I believe justice is God's, but while He is mysteriously absent and purposely omitted in the novel, I believe the creature is justified in his feelings because the act represents something larger than simply destroying or preventing one life.