Tumgik
#ive just been thinking a lot abt this class discussion recently and this internal debate has been bugging me to death
Note
pleaseee talk abt Frankenstein I'd love to hear what u have to say!! 🥰🥰
JUST REMEMBERED IVE HAD THIS ASK SITTING IN MY INBOX FOR A BIT I WAS SAVING IT FOR A RAINY DAY WHEN I NEEDED AN EXCUSE TO LET THE THOUGHTS OUT OHHHHH OKAY
so i saw a post on here a long fucking time ago essentially saying "stop saying something defies nature when you really mean it defies god" and for some reason i have not been able to stop thinking abt it lately bc like. okay.
when we read Frankenstein in class a few months ago, my teacher asked us the question after we'd finished the book: "should victor have created the monster?" and the general consensus was "no, because he was defying nature and creating an abomination- it was a mistake on his part, an act of ignorance and hubris." and like. even then i was of the opinion that victor shouldnt have made the creature, but that doesnt mean the creature shouldnt have been made, yknow? just that victor should not have been the one to do it because he was incapable of taking responsibility of it
and now i just cant stop thinking about the almost cycle of like. what nature says and how this plays into its creation because heres the thing. it was possible. if something truly defied the natural order, it wouldnt be possible right?? change is nature- evolution and progress is nature. the fact that it was possible for the creature to be made means its within the realm of nature right? like there was no magic involved, nothing supernatural- it was literally all natural science that victor applied to discover the secret of life and shit. so if you look at it through this lens then it totally follows my original thought, theres no reason that the creature shouldnt exist, but victor should not have been the one to create him
EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE CORE TRUTHS OF THE NOVEL AND ONE OF THE REASONS I RESONATE WITH THE STORY SO MUCH IS THAT THE CREATURE AT A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL IS INCAPABLE OF BEING ACCEPTED BY SOCIETY. thats why he begs victor for a companion, he knows he will always be alone and no one will ever truly empathize with him. his entire life story sees him attempting to fit in with the beauty of the world, and only finding pain and suffering. and so now im stuck with this eternal debate in my mind, is this because he actually is an unnatural creation that he is unable to find a home? or is his being deemed unnatural a symptom of the very thing preventing him from being accepted by the world: humanity's fear/hatred of that which is different. and i just. im so stuck with this concept, this back and forth of nature vs the unnatural and where the creature falls in this spectrum; how much of nature is determined by us? im gay as fuck and incredibly transgender; people scream abomination at me all the time and that makes me more inclined to say unnatural is a meaningless word in this context. hes unnatural the same way i am, that is to say not at all because we both fucking exist. but then my brother brought up the fact that he is made up of corpses and theres the issue with desecration of the dead and lack of consent with ones body parts being reanimated but thats less unnatural to me and more unethical. and maybe thats the reason this is sticking with me so much because everyone around me was acting like this was a question of nature when really its a question of ethics. and maybe thats what my teacher meant and was trying to get at, but my classmates took it the nature route because everyone takes it the nature route (with good reason i think for how much they bring up the same topics in the text itself). but i really dont think nature matters in this context, so much as the ethics behinds victors actions before and after creating the creature
this is barely a conclusion and yet its the one ive arrived to so. thanks for the excuse to ramble, hopefully these thoughts make more sense written out than they do in my head
3 notes · View notes