To be, or not to be, that is the Question

By: Brooke Redlich

If something thinks like a human, has humanistic qualities, learns like a human, and has all the body parts like a human, does that make it a human? Is it the soul of something that makes it a human? In Mary Shelley's novel "Frankenstein" she creates a character of debate. The Monster is an 'it' that is just like a person, but is rejected by society due to its disturbing appearance. In class, we debated heavily on the question of would you consider the Monster a human or not. If something has a soul does it make it a human? I believe that the Monster is to be considered a human based on his emotional needs and desires just like another human-being. Yes, biologically he was not made by a sperm and egg, but he does feel just like another person would. Not every person ends up murdering people out of revenge, but it is the fact of the Monster having this emotion of revenge that makes him a person. I think an animal in the wild would have the capacity to kill another animal if feeling threatened, but it would not seek out a specific threat in order to get revenge on it or something else.

Revenge, confusion, lust, interpretation, anger and frustration are all humanistic qualities the Monster displayed. Just because he looks uncanny, does not mean he should not be treated like any other person. He was made to be like a human, and like a human he should be treated. If it was not for his abandonment, I think that the Monster would not be so gruesome. If he would have been taught how to adapt into human society he would have been a character of praise. Praise is an over statement because of coarse anything new at first is looked upon as being a risk into society. But eventually, I think that Frankenstein's creation could have made him famous and his work stimulating to other scientists.

His work can be related to cloning in our present day. I do not agree with human cloning, but the fact that science has come so far to be able to create life without sexual reproduction is astonishing yet frightening. If the science can be controlled I believe it should be alright to prosper on with experimentation, but that is the problem. Can we put the trust of one man, or many men or women, to act as God figures without taking it to an extreme level which could be devastating?

""The ancient teachers of this science," said he, "promised impossibilities, and performed nothing. The modern masters promise very little; they know that metals cannot be transmuted, and that the elixir of life is a chimera. But these philosophers, whose hands seem only made to dabble in dirt, and their eyes to pour over the microscope or crucible, have indeed performed miracles. They penetrate into the recesses of nature, and shew how she works in her hiding places. They ascent into the heavens; they have discovered how the blood circulates, and the nature of the air we breathe. They have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of heaven, mimic the earthquake, and even mock the invisible world with its own shadows (28),"" this quote to me is the definition of the curiosity I feel for the science that Frankenstein studied, but also the fear of why today in our society it could be disastrous.

Human or not a human, is mocking human life right or wrong? We all have our own opinions on these subjects, and with Mary Shelley's novel "Frankenstein" we can begin a debate upon this realistic, nonfictional tale.

Unveiling the Moral

Throughout my reading of "The Monk" by Mathew Lewis I came across expectations of the woman's role in society through the word veil, and became facinated by the religious patterns that I seen in our politics and constitutional laws today that are also shown in Lewis's novel.

Throughout the novels beginnings the word 'veil' potrayed to me a sense of religious meaning alongside expectations of the woman's role throughout the Madrid setting. In the first setting of the novel in the Capuchin Church, all the women had let down their veils showing their faces and hair to all around including males. To the males it seemed a necessary way to judge the faces of the women around them. Cited on page fourteen, "After a pause of some minutes-'It is certainly from your being a stranger,'said he 'and as yet unaquainted with our customs, that you continue to wear your veil. Permit me to remove it.' At the same time he advanced his hand towards the gauze: the lady raised hers to prevent him.
'I never unveil in the public, Segnor.'
'And where is the harm, I pray you?' interrupted her companion somewhat sharply. 'Do not you see, that the other ladies have all laid their veils aside, to do honour no doubt to the holy place in which we are? I have taken off mine already; and surely, if I expose my feartures to general observation, you have no cause to put yourself in such a wonderful alarm! Blessed Maria! Here is a fuss and a bustle about a chit's face! Come, come, child! Uncover it! I warrant you that nobody will run away with it from you-'"

This quotation has significance to me because it portrays the role of the man in society to help a woman out, but what if she does not want it? What if she refuses to coincide with the other roles of the women, to unveil in a religioius setting? Will she be punished for her descrepancy.

The character I find intriguing is Antonia, age fifteen, with men drooling over her, which is a complete contradictory to today's society. If a fifteen year old was looked at as a marriage partner at that young of an age today it would be seen as uncanny as described in our recent readings by Sigmuend Freud of "The Uncanny."

Antonia, the quiet, secluded young niece of the obtusely contrary Donna Leonella, became quite the uncanny character when 'the Man of Holiness' began his ceremony. 'The Man of Holiness' reveiled similar character and situational similarities to Antonia, and she began to fantasize that maybe she too is 'holy.' But what really is holy to us today? I found it numerous how after the Man of Holiness spoke and retreated back with the other Monks and his rosary broke, the viewers fell to the floor gathering the 'sacred beads.' It reminded me of concerts these days when celebrities throw items of clothing and towels off the stage and the audience/fans go chaotic over who gets to keep it. It makes me question the legitimacy of the Monk's religious celebrity to the people. Their was several unique views that came to play after the Monk's first appearance in the novel. Antonia, whom is to be very young and naive- believed him to be a saint, and the possibility that she herself is a saint as well. She was flustered by his outer appearances to her senses, like his deep penetrating voice. Contrary to that, Antonia's blunt yet extremely unrealistic aunt believed that the Man of Holiness seemed to render a devil like attitute towards the punishment of sinners and the consequences of sin. Cited on page twenty, "His voice, at once distince and deep, was fraught with all the terrors of the tempest, while he inveighed against the vices of humanity, and described the punishments reserved for them in a future state. Every hearer looked back upon his past offences, and trembled: the thunder seemed to roll, whose bolt was distined to crush im, and the abyss of eternal destruction to open before his feet! But when ambrosio, changing his theme, spoke of the excellence of an unsullied conscience, of the glordious prospect which eternity presented to the soul untainted with reproach, and of the recompese which awaited it in the regions of everlasting glory, his auditors felt their scattered spirits insenseibly return. They threw themselves with confidence upon the mery of their judge; they hung with delight upon the sonsoling words of the preacher; and while his full voice swelled into melody, they were transported to those happy regions which he painted to their imaginations in colours so brilliant and glowing."
I found I was attracted to this quote because of the absurdness of someone controlling so many people's thoughts and emotions at one time. To me, a speaker with so much power to influence can lead a country either to very positive altitudes or down to low elevations, and they will never even know that all along they were being manipulated to act a certain way to benifite someone else. Even in today's society, advertisement influences us to buy certain products-even products that can be harmful to us like cigarettes. Learning how to manipulate someone can bring one person far but at what price?

One aspect of the quote I found that had my mind spinning, was how their religious morals and laws from the church control them to the point where they think they are going to hell if they disobey an authority above them. What has me astonished, is how even today our Constitutional Laws of the United States of America in 2009 is based off of religious morals. Yes I agree that it is wrong to kill someone, but think deeper, think of where that moral came from. It came from religious based morals that we have kept since the beginning of our nations rise, regardless of how diverse our countries ethnicities our.

This novel is pulling me in to deeper, new unconventional thoughts that seem outragious, but all in all gives me a more creative outlook on societies and their diversity.