Frankenstein Essay
Amanda Wright
Mr. D'Ambrosio
AP English Literature/Comp, Period 5
15 December 2014
Frankenstein: Nature vs. Nurture In the novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley brings about the debate between nature versus nurture. Mentioned by Dan Hurley in his work, Trait vs. Fate, is a little story that involves this topic. "Two alcoholic mice, a mother and her son, sit on two bar stools, lapping gin from two thimbles. The mother mouse looks up and says, "Hey geniuses, tell me how my son got into this sorry state." "Bad inheritance," says Darwin. "Bad mothering," says Freud." (Hurley, Trait Vs. Fate.). Philosophers and Scientists alike have, for centuries, argued whether a person's character is the result of nature, meaning genetic predispositions, or nurture, meaning life experiences, the way in which one is taught and how their development is affected by the environment surrounding them. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, an English Philosopher, claims that human beings exist in a state of nature and are naturally savage and brutal. On the other hand, John Locke, also an English Philosopher, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, argues that every being is born with a tabula rasa, or blank slate, and their character traits and behaviors result from their personal life encounters. In Frankenstein, Shelley attempts to, through many different interactions, express that because of Victor's failings as a creator and parent, the monster's isolation, and society's reaction to the monster, the creature became evil. The monster's character was a result of the way in which he was nurtured. He was not innately evil directly from birth. The two main characters of the book, Victor Frankenstein and the creature he created, both have an innate nature that factors into each one's personality and way of life; however, they are subjected to two completely different nurturing styles. While Victor was brought up in a wealthy, loving family, the creature was created and abandoned by his creator, left to fend for himself in a world full of cruelty. Both nature and nurture play a key role in the novel. The nature argument is responsible for the fall of Victor Frankenstein. His fervent obsession with the idea of being recognized for a big advancement in science disabled him from realizing that no man should try to play God. The nurture argument is responsible for the fall of the creature. If Victor would have taken on the role as the creature's parent and nurtured him the way he would have nurtured a newborn child, there could have been hope for the character's development as a "human" created by man. Instead of being loved and cherished, the creature was hated by everyone around him due to his monster-like appearance. When speaking to Victor at one point, he recalls a time that he went to a village. When he was seen, the children screamed and the women fainted. Some people even attacked him. All they saw was a big monster, not a human. The monster is not to blame for this, Victor is. The way one develops depends on the people who are assisting in the process. In the novel, Victor says, "It may be imagined that while during every hour of my infant life I received a lesson of patience, of charity, and of self-control," (Frankenstein, pg. 40). He explains his parents as "devoted and "tender," which allows us to believe that he was privileged with a compassionate environment. Victor received the love from his family but failed to take care of his own creation. A child needs the love of their parents and this is what the monster wished for, but lacked. Throughout the novel, the creature shows a natural desire to learn how to read and write and be accepted by other human beings. When he learns to think on his own, he begins to wonder why his creator would abandon him. Eventually, he becomes angry because he had no sense of home or protection. Children learn how to behave and act from their parents. Some are rewarded for good acts, and some are punished for bad acts. This is the process of how one learns. A child does not just automatically assume that it is wrong to be violent. For example, say a child is at the playground and hits another child. The one who performed the violent act is usually reprimanded by a parent, which teaches them that they are not allowed to do that. The monster did not have the privilege of learning from a parent. The lack of nurture is the sole reason for his corruption and the terrible deeds he commits, including murder. In Frankenstein and the State of Nature, included in the Second Edition of the Norton Critical edition of Frankenstein, Jonathan Bates tries to explain Frankenstein's reasoning for going against nature. Victor sees this wondrous light which encourages him to try to discover creation and mortality. He spends much of his time brainstorming and researching ways that would enable him to do something that not one person has ever done, create life from death. He even goes to the extremes of taking limbs from the deceased in order to create the creature. Bates states that "by going against the natural process of generation, by making a child of his own without submission to the fecundity of a woman’s womb, he symbolically kills mother nature,"(Frankenstein and the State of Nature, pg. 478). He believes that because the monster was never given birth to, Victor was symbolically killing mother nature. According to The Southern Review, “having made this wonderful discovery, he hastened to put it in practice; by plundering graves and stealing, not bodies, but parts of bodies,” (The Southern Review, pg. 5) which is completely going against nature. Nature and nurture both contribute to the development of the monster's behavior; however, Shelley uses Jean-Jacque Rousseau's, a Genevan Philosopher, theory on the natural man who is born free, pure, and good only to later be corrupted by society to prove that nurture is the leading factor which forms the creature's behavior. The creature watches a family, the De Lacey's, and learns how to speak, read, write, and also form an intelligent thought on his own. When the creature approached the old man, he was not meant with shrieks and screams, but was instead treated like a person. The man happened to be blind, meaning that he could not see the creature's monstrous appearance; therefore, the creature finally was able to experience a normal, everyday conversation. De Lacey was the only person to ever show kindness towards the creature. One day the creature sees the father comforting his daughter and says he felt "a mixture of pain and pleasure such as I never before experienced,"(Frankenstein, pg. 130) This shows that he is capable of forming a reasonable thought. The thought also shows that all he really wishes for in this life that was so cruelly thrust upon him is the opportunity to feel loved and cherished by another. With this family, he begins to form human thoughts. While watching them, he realizes that he will never be a part of humanity, he will always be an outcast. The nurturing care the creature receives while watching the family overcomes his animal like character. Through nurture, the creature was able to find knowledge. He finally became conscious of himself. The creature read three books, Paradise Lost, Sorrow of Werter, and Lives, throughout the novel. By reading these books he enhances his knowledge. He feels connected in a certain way to each book and feels a range of emotions. In reading Paradise Lost, he says, "it moved every feeling of wonder and awe...similarity struck me, to my own,"(Frankenstein, pg. 155). He feels like he can relate to Adam because they were both formed by a creator. He also relates himself to the devil because at times he felt envy towards the Delacey's. They have people who love them. Each member of the family can say that they are a part of something bigger while the creature is struggling on his own, not accepted by society. The book, Lives, taught him how society worked. Lastly, Sorrow of Werter made him feel a wide range of emotions, but mainly depressed. In Genesis: Biblical Account of Creation, the story of how God created man, Adam, is explained. God nurtured man by feeding and clothing him, and also by providing him with a woman, Eve, to accompany him. The one thing that they were told not to do is eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When both Adam and Eve went against God, after being tempted by the serpent, the devil, they were punished (Genesis 2). In an attempt to play God, Frankenstein brought life to the dead. The only one who can create life is God himself. The difference between God and Frankenstein is that God nurtured the man that he created while Frankenstein abandoned his creation. Frankenstein was punished for doing so. He lost his family, friends, and eventually his life. Frankenstein's determined nature led him to attempt the impossible by doing what only God ever did, create man. The only thing that he cared about was being known for something and to do something that would put his name out there for advancements in the field of science. The lack of nurture that the creature experienced turned him into a murderer and a monster. Not one person is evil from birth. A person learns from the things that they experience during their time on earth. The creature was never treated as an actual person. He was met with screams of obscenities and terror. Although the creature was not given birth to, he was still created with a mind like that of a normal human. In order to develop into a fully functioning human, he needed the nourishment and love of a parent. By depriving the creature of these necessities, Victor Frankenstein created a monster. In conclusion, the topic of nature versus nurture brings up many debates among people. Some insist that humans are born with pre-developed characters and behaviors, while others believe that every person is born pure and learns from their experiences in the outside world. Frankenstein and his creation both fell victim to nature and nurture.
Mr. D'Ambrosio
AP English Literature/Comp, Period 5
15 December 2014
Frankenstein: Nature vs. Nurture In the novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley brings about the debate between nature versus nurture. Mentioned by Dan Hurley in his work, Trait vs. Fate, is a little story that involves this topic. "Two alcoholic mice, a mother and her son, sit on two bar stools, lapping gin from two thimbles. The mother mouse looks up and says, "Hey geniuses, tell me how my son got into this sorry state." "Bad inheritance," says Darwin. "Bad mothering," says Freud." (Hurley, Trait Vs. Fate.). Philosophers and Scientists alike have, for centuries, argued whether a person's character is the result of nature, meaning genetic predispositions, or nurture, meaning life experiences, the way in which one is taught and how their development is affected by the environment surrounding them. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, an English Philosopher, claims that human beings exist in a state of nature and are naturally savage and brutal. On the other hand, John Locke, also an English Philosopher, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, argues that every being is born with a tabula rasa, or blank slate, and their character traits and behaviors result from their personal life encounters. In Frankenstein, Shelley attempts to, through many different interactions, express that because of Victor's failings as a creator and parent, the monster's isolation, and society's reaction to the monster, the creature became evil. The monster's character was a result of the way in which he was nurtured. He was not innately evil directly from birth. The two main characters of the book, Victor Frankenstein and the creature he created, both have an innate nature that factors into each one's personality and way of life; however, they are subjected to two completely different nurturing styles. While Victor was brought up in a wealthy, loving family, the creature was created and abandoned by his creator, left to fend for himself in a world full of cruelty. Both nature and nurture play a key role in the novel. The nature argument is responsible for the fall of Victor Frankenstein. His fervent obsession with the idea of being recognized for a big advancement in science disabled him from realizing that no man should try to play God. The nurture argument is responsible for the fall of the creature. If Victor would have taken on the role as the creature's parent and nurtured him the way he would have nurtured a newborn child, there could have been hope for the character's development as a "human" created by man. Instead of being loved and cherished, the creature was hated by everyone around him due to his monster-like appearance. When speaking to Victor at one point, he recalls a time that he went to a village. When he was seen, the children screamed and the women fainted. Some people even attacked him. All they saw was a big monster, not a human. The monster is not to blame for this, Victor is. The way one develops depends on the people who are assisting in the process. In the novel, Victor says, "It may be imagined that while during every hour of my infant life I received a lesson of patience, of charity, and of self-control," (Frankenstein, pg. 40). He explains his parents as "devoted and "tender," which allows us to believe that he was privileged with a compassionate environment. Victor received the love from his family but failed to take care of his own creation. A child needs the love of their parents and this is what the monster wished for, but lacked. Throughout the novel, the creature shows a natural desire to learn how to read and write and be accepted by other human beings. When he learns to think on his own, he begins to wonder why his creator would abandon him. Eventually, he becomes angry because he had no sense of home or protection. Children learn how to behave and act from their parents. Some are rewarded for good acts, and some are punished for bad acts. This is the process of how one learns. A child does not just automatically assume that it is wrong to be violent. For example, say a child is at the playground and hits another child. The one who performed the violent act is usually reprimanded by a parent, which teaches them that they are not allowed to do that. The monster did not have the privilege of learning from a parent. The lack of nurture is the sole reason for his corruption and the terrible deeds he commits, including murder. In Frankenstein and the State of Nature, included in the Second Edition of the Norton Critical edition of Frankenstein, Jonathan Bates tries to explain Frankenstein's reasoning for going against nature. Victor sees this wondrous light which encourages him to try to discover creation and mortality. He spends much of his time brainstorming and researching ways that would enable him to do something that not one person has ever done, create life from death. He even goes to the extremes of taking limbs from the deceased in order to create the creature. Bates states that "by going against the natural process of generation, by making a child of his own without submission to the fecundity of a woman’s womb, he symbolically kills mother nature,"(Frankenstein and the State of Nature, pg. 478). He believes that because the monster was never given birth to, Victor was symbolically killing mother nature. According to The Southern Review, “having made this wonderful discovery, he hastened to put it in practice; by plundering graves and stealing, not bodies, but parts of bodies,” (The Southern Review, pg. 5) which is completely going against nature. Nature and nurture both contribute to the development of the monster's behavior; however, Shelley uses Jean-Jacque Rousseau's, a Genevan Philosopher, theory on the natural man who is born free, pure, and good only to later be corrupted by society to prove that nurture is the leading factor which forms the creature's behavior. The creature watches a family, the De Lacey's, and learns how to speak, read, write, and also form an intelligent thought on his own. When the creature approached the old man, he was not meant with shrieks and screams, but was instead treated like a person. The man happened to be blind, meaning that he could not see the creature's monstrous appearance; therefore, the creature finally was able to experience a normal, everyday conversation. De Lacey was the only person to ever show kindness towards the creature. One day the creature sees the father comforting his daughter and says he felt "a mixture of pain and pleasure such as I never before experienced,"(Frankenstein, pg. 130) This shows that he is capable of forming a reasonable thought. The thought also shows that all he really wishes for in this life that was so cruelly thrust upon him is the opportunity to feel loved and cherished by another. With this family, he begins to form human thoughts. While watching them, he realizes that he will never be a part of humanity, he will always be an outcast. The nurturing care the creature receives while watching the family overcomes his animal like character. Through nurture, the creature was able to find knowledge. He finally became conscious of himself. The creature read three books, Paradise Lost, Sorrow of Werter, and Lives, throughout the novel. By reading these books he enhances his knowledge. He feels connected in a certain way to each book and feels a range of emotions. In reading Paradise Lost, he says, "it moved every feeling of wonder and awe...similarity struck me, to my own,"(Frankenstein, pg. 155). He feels like he can relate to Adam because they were both formed by a creator. He also relates himself to the devil because at times he felt envy towards the Delacey's. They have people who love them. Each member of the family can say that they are a part of something bigger while the creature is struggling on his own, not accepted by society. The book, Lives, taught him how society worked. Lastly, Sorrow of Werter made him feel a wide range of emotions, but mainly depressed. In Genesis: Biblical Account of Creation, the story of how God created man, Adam, is explained. God nurtured man by feeding and clothing him, and also by providing him with a woman, Eve, to accompany him. The one thing that they were told not to do is eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When both Adam and Eve went against God, after being tempted by the serpent, the devil, they were punished (Genesis 2). In an attempt to play God, Frankenstein brought life to the dead. The only one who can create life is God himself. The difference between God and Frankenstein is that God nurtured the man that he created while Frankenstein abandoned his creation. Frankenstein was punished for doing so. He lost his family, friends, and eventually his life. Frankenstein's determined nature led him to attempt the impossible by doing what only God ever did, create man. The only thing that he cared about was being known for something and to do something that would put his name out there for advancements in the field of science. The lack of nurture that the creature experienced turned him into a murderer and a monster. Not one person is evil from birth. A person learns from the things that they experience during their time on earth. The creature was never treated as an actual person. He was met with screams of obscenities and terror. Although the creature was not given birth to, he was still created with a mind like that of a normal human. In order to develop into a fully functioning human, he needed the nourishment and love of a parent. By depriving the creature of these necessities, Victor Frankenstein created a monster. In conclusion, the topic of nature versus nurture brings up many debates among people. Some insist that humans are born with pre-developed characters and behaviors, while others believe that every person is born pure and learns from their experiences in the outside world. Frankenstein and his creation both fell victim to nature and nurture.