In response to “Monster’s White Paper”, I agree with the connection made to John Locke’s theory of “white paper”, tabula. “void of all characters without any ideas”(Locke 2) Frankenstein’s monster had no idea who he was or what he was. He learned through sensations and self reflection. “on a sensation of cold, I had covered myself with some clothes…” (Shelley 92) He didn’t understand why but he felt horrible and he was in pain so he started to cry. All of a sudden he sees the moon and he says “and gave me a sensation of pleasure”(Shelley 92) He’s learning about his emotions by naturally feeling and observing what is happening around him. Over time he learned how to distinguish hunger, thirst, sound, and images. All of this made him reflect and create his own ideas. Now he doesn’t learn about history, happiness and love until he starts to observe the family in the hut. This is when he really starts to think about himself and his life. “God in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblence. Satan had his companions…but I am solitary and abhorred.” (Shelley116) When he was in solitude in the woods he didn’t even know what it meant to be “alone”. Sadly, he came to an understanding that he was hideous as well. After all the lessons that came from his experiences he comes a to a conclusion on what he wants. He goes on a search for Frankenstein with a goal in mind. He wants him to create another monster so he can have a friend. Someone to spend the rest of his life with. Frankenstein’s monster wants an equal. “Our observation, employed either about external sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our minds, perceived and reflected on by ourselves is that which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking. These two are the fountains of knowledge, from whence all the ideas we have, or can naturally have, do spring.” (Locke 2)
2 thoughts on “Response to the “Monster’s White Paper””
Comments are closed.
I really like how much you’re engaging the text, and the ideas are good. I think though that your ideas might be better suited to compare to Rousseau. I didn’t really see how you could explain the companionship desire with Locke. You give a quote, but noticeably you don’t follow the quote up with an explanation.
Also when you do a peer response post, you need to include the name of the author of the post (even if it’s only the blogs@baruch handle). Also try to make it clear early on in the post what exactly you’re adding to the first post.