I'm curious whether you think that within both Frankenstein and The Tempest whether the antagonists are actually the masters themselves while the monsters, Frankenstein and Caliban, are actually the characters to be sympathized with. Your thesis at its foundation seems to suggest that we should sympathize with the monsters, though from what I know of Frankenstein and The Tempest, Frankenstein and Caliban aren't portrayed in sympathetic ways.
I thought that you brought up an interesting point when you say that evil comes because of neglect or mistreatment. I wonder how much of this is true, because I have always felt that while this may be true, it also comes from the nature of the person, and it comes from within them too. I have heard about real-life stories in which somebody rises up from poverty and neglect and mistreatment from his or her parents and goes on to become successful people with stable families and are great parents themselves. If this is true, then it can be argued that the argument that you present can be partially invalid.
I also agree with Alyssa here. I think we often use people who can't rise above their mistreatment to demonstrate why every child needs stability and comfort and family during their adolescent years. However, it's always easier to focus on the negatives and tell everyone what not to do while passing over all the success stories that are prevalent. It's my opinion that people who have been raised in neglect are stronger people than those raised in comfort and have more of an ability to make a way for themselves in the world because they know exactly what they want and are willing to make the sacrifices they've always had to make to get what they want.
I agree with Mary about how it seems that your interpretation of Frankenstein and Caliban were written for the reader to almost feel sorry for these monsters. From reading Caliban, I don’t think I had that feeling because of all the terrible things that Caliban had done. I think monsters are written for a purpose and that is to be a monster. However, I also like how you brought up the idea of how being neglected and mistreated can affect the characteristic of monsters because this can be said about humans and not just monster. I know that there are a bunch of people in the world have changed because of how they were treated earlier on. This goes to show you how our choices can really affect someone’s life in either a really negative or really positive way. Another thing that I liked about your presentation was your closing quote from Harry Potter. I enjoyed it very much because Harry Potter movies are definitely my favorite but also because that quote has so much meaning to it. It seems like you have a really good grasp on your topic because you are able incorporate different texts with similar meanings.
I really like your idea on how monsters are more created through experience and neglect than just beginning as outright monsters. They are simply misunderstood. It reminds me of an episode of My Little Pony, yea, My Little Pony, they had to wake up this sleeping dragon. It tuned out that the dragon wasn't bad it just made a bad decision. Which is very prevalent in today's society, with people making more and more bad decisions that lead them down a path turning them into a monster before they can even realize what had happened to them, much like in my novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, he made a multitude of bad decisions and they didn't come back to haunt him until the really end as he realized his soul was corrupted and hence ended his life.
I agree with Gelila in that I believe that how people are treated in the past can affect and change them in the present which can allow them to be perceived in a completely different way, because if some has been treated poorly for a certain length of time they will not come back as the same person as you knew them before, they could come back as a "monster" but what would make them a monster would be the others that surround them. The physical person or thing behind the said "monster" might not be as bad a what people make it out to be and really could be the creation of actions done by others and their personal experiences over a period of time.
Alyssa makes a very good point. Evil can only be defined to a point by treatment. Ultimately it’s the person’s choice whether or not they give in to those urges. I loved this book when I read it freshman year. What I gathered the first time around was that the monster was literally a monster; specifically, it was the embodiment of evil. His pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein is one of the reasons why I get really paranoid if someone has been following me for an extended period of time (it’s ridiculous, I know). I think that Shelley’s story about giving something inanimate the gift of consciousness was a commentary on how human beings use that very same gift. We are given emotions and morals, but those are only what we make of them. The monster is the worst case scenario.
I'm curious whether you think that within both Frankenstein and The Tempest whether the antagonists are actually the masters themselves while the monsters, Frankenstein and Caliban, are actually the characters to be sympathized with. Your thesis at its foundation seems to suggest that we should sympathize with the monsters, though from what I know of Frankenstein and The Tempest, Frankenstein and Caliban aren't portrayed in sympathetic ways.
ReplyDeleteI thought that you brought up an interesting point when you say that evil comes because of neglect or mistreatment. I wonder how much of this is true, because I have always felt that while this may be true, it also comes from the nature of the person, and it comes from within them too. I have heard about real-life stories in which somebody rises up from poverty and neglect and mistreatment from his or her parents and goes on to become successful people with stable families and are great parents themselves. If this is true, then it can be argued that the argument that you present can be partially invalid.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Alyssa here. I think we often use people who can't rise above their mistreatment to demonstrate why every child needs stability and comfort and family during their adolescent years. However, it's always easier to focus on the negatives and tell everyone what not to do while passing over all the success stories that are prevalent. It's my opinion that people who have been raised in neglect are stronger people than those raised in comfort and have more of an ability to make a way for themselves in the world because they know exactly what they want and are willing to make the sacrifices they've always had to make to get what they want.
DeleteI agree with Mary about how it seems that your interpretation of Frankenstein and Caliban were written for the reader to almost feel sorry for these monsters. From reading Caliban, I don’t think I had that feeling because of all the terrible things that Caliban had done. I think monsters are written for a purpose and that is to be a monster. However, I also like how you brought up the idea of how being neglected and mistreated can affect the characteristic of monsters because this can be said about humans and not just monster. I know that there are a bunch of people in the world have changed because of how they were treated earlier on. This goes to show you how our choices can really affect someone’s life in either a really negative or really positive way. Another thing that I liked about your presentation was your closing quote from Harry Potter. I enjoyed it very much because Harry Potter movies are definitely my favorite but also because that quote has so much meaning to it. It seems like you have a really good grasp on your topic because you are able incorporate different texts with similar meanings.
ReplyDeleteI really like your idea on how monsters are more created through experience and neglect than just beginning as outright monsters. They are simply misunderstood. It reminds me of an episode of My Little Pony, yea, My Little Pony, they had to wake up this sleeping dragon. It tuned out that the dragon wasn't bad it just made a bad decision. Which is very prevalent in today's society, with people making more and more bad decisions that lead them down a path turning them into a monster before they can even realize what had happened to them, much like in my novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, he made a multitude of bad decisions and they didn't come back to haunt him until the really end as he realized his soul was corrupted and hence ended his life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gelila in that I believe that how people are treated in the past can affect and change them in the present which can allow them to be perceived in a completely different way, because if some has been treated poorly for a certain length of time they will not come back as the same person as you knew them before, they could come back as a "monster" but what would make them a monster would be the others that surround them. The physical person or thing behind the said "monster" might not be as bad a what people make it out to be and really could be the creation of actions done by others and their personal experiences over a period of time.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa makes a very good point. Evil can only be defined to a point by treatment. Ultimately it’s the person’s choice whether or not they give in to those urges. I loved this book when I read it freshman year. What I gathered the first time around was that the monster was literally a monster; specifically, it was the embodiment of evil. His pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein is one of the reasons why I get really paranoid if someone has been following me for an extended period of time (it’s ridiculous, I know). I think that Shelley’s story about giving something inanimate the gift of consciousness was a commentary on how human beings use that very same gift. We are given emotions and morals, but those are only what we make of them. The monster is the worst case scenario.
ReplyDelete