“I, not in deed, but in effect, was the true murderer.”
-
Victor Frankenstein
This is an intriguing line in that it presses upon the fact
that to be considered a monster may not lie only in the deed that is done but
in the actions that lead to monstrous deeds.
Victor did not kill William nor Justine and yet his obsession in his work
led to the creation of his monster and his inability to acknowledge, control
and destroy said monster led to monstrous deeds and lives lost.
How does this change the way we look at monsters? I think it expands the notion of monsters
from acts only to acts and lack of actions.
If Victor had destroyed what he created, or at least notified someone
that a creature was on the loose, there wouldn't be a metaphorical trail of
blood leading back to him.
Not only are we responsible and should be held accountable
for the deeds we do, but perhaps we should also be held accountable for the
deeds we don't do but greatly influence, as well as the acts we don't prevent
when we are capable to do so. I'm not
saying that in situations such as a random knife attack we are held accountable
to stop the attack. I'm merely saying
that there are moments when we do something questionable and we try hard to
justify our actions in an attempt to assuage our guilt; and in those very
moments we need to really think about if we are on the path of monster-like deeds
as a result of inaction.
Yes, there is a difference between monsters, monstrous acts,
and acts that lead to monstrous outcomes but how big is that difference and
where does one end and the other begin?
It seems like a lot of gray area to me…
Sources:
1. Grimly, Gris and Mary Shelley. Gris Grimly's Frankenstein. N.p.: Balzer & Bray, 2015. Print.
2. http://thebookwars.ca/2014/03/gris-grimlys-frankenstein/
3. http://www.mememaker.net/meme/brace-ourselves-the-gray-area-is-coming/
I do think Victor should be held accountable for Frankenstein’s actions, especially since it seems like he is nothing but a coward who runs away from his problems and lives in a world of shelf pity. Just like we discussed in class, at the beginning we all kind of had sympathy for him. He just seemed to struggle with his loneliness. However, after he was feeling sorry for himself while Justine was being executed. He could not for one moment stop and think about her. Yes, this was his fault, but he is not paying the consequences, Justine is. He just sounds like a pathetic coward. That scene alone is the perfect example of why he is a monster; he is selfish. However, that does not mean that he is all to blame. The creature is also to blame because he committed those crimes. We can argue that he did not know what he was doing and he was completely clueless about how society works, but he still did it. He did it intentionally and to seek revenge. It is important to say that Victor is a monster, but it is also important to say the creature is as well, regardless of how we feel about them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that inaction matters just as much as action, I would also argue the choice of inaction is an action in and of itself. In this case, Victor never even contemplated confessing to his part in the effective murders of William and Justine. Instead, he goes on at length about how horrible he feels. I liken this to walking by someone being mugged in an alley and thinking, "Oh, how terrible. They're going to lose their wallet, and maybe even be maimed/killed. I can't bear to watch such a thing happen, and I shall have nightmares of this event for days to come. Woe is me." After which they carry on their merry way. Now that might not be monstrous, but it certainly says something about Victor's character - and nothing nice at that.
ReplyDelete