Shelly’s “Frankenstein” brings up an important issue that many of us sadly may have succumbed to some point in our lives and that is the idea of wanting to be accepted by the majority. Whether it is among your peers in school, your coworkers, or even your family members, there has been some moment where we hide a part of our true character so that we are not ostracized. However what happens when you’re shut out just because your appearance does not conform to the majority’s standards? You’re not given the opportunity to prove yourself a capable member of society because you were judged too early. These are feelings that the monster in Shelly’s Frankenstein knows too well.
“As yet I looked upon crime as a distant evil, benevolence and generosity were ever present before me, inciting within me a desire to become an actor in the busy scene where so many admirable qualities were called forth and displayed (Shelly 132)”. The monster, in this point in time, yearns for becoming a normal member of society and that if given the opportunity to prove his gentle character than he may be accepted. Yet when he is rejected, he becomes angry and vengeful against Victor for creating him the way he is. This reminds me of the bullying cases that are common today where some kids and teenagers who are teased are pushed to commit heinous crimes. For example the Virginia Tech shooting that occurred in 2007.
“There was none among the myriads of men that existed who would pity or assist me; and should I feel kindness towards my enemies? No; from that moment I declared everlasting war against the species, and more than all, against him who had formed me and sent me forth to this insupportable misery (Shelly 142).” Just like the monster who turned his back against humanity for his rejection, it was said that the shooter of the Virginia Tech massacre, Cho, did the same after being bullied. Both faced the masses with defects that were utilized by others to criticize them and as a result it fueled their rage against humanity. The monster’s defect was his outer appearance and Cho’s may have been his unstable mentality, which led him to be perceived “as a near-silent loner who wrote gruesome poems, stories and plays (”Seung-Hui Cho”)”. Unlike the monster which exhibited to be in control of his emotions, enough so to demand from Victor a mate so that his days in solitude would end the same cannot be said for Cho. Sadly, Cho was pushed beyond the brink and committed a massacre that will remain forever in U.S. history.
“Seung-Hui Cho.” Bio. A&E Television Networks, 2015. Web. 15 Feb. 2015
I think what you bring together here is excellent. I wish you could have said more at the end of your second paragraph. I’d like to know what specifically reminds you of the increasingly concerning dynamic around bullies. It seems a little general right now.
Relatedly when you do get specific with the Virginia Tech case, I felt like you got a little loose with your compare and contrast. I mean doesn’t the monster also massacre? You make it sound as if the monster has a somewhat better fate. This seems like your core sentence “Both faced the masses with defects that were utilized by others to criticize them and as a result it fueled their rage against humanity.” I’m wondering if you could talk about what you mean by “the masses.” You explain “defect” a little, but I’m not sure I understand what constitutes a defect (especially since the monster is technically superior to humans in a ton of ways). I’m also interested in this idea of rage. It’d be nice if you could point us back to what the Frankenstein text offers (if anything at all) on rage.