In the book, Frankenstein’s monster is a tragic character but also kills several people without real justification or remorse. He shouldn’t be romanticized either. Both he and his creator are villains.
Then again, the movie doesn’t sound like it’s going for a faithful adaptation, so maybe this version is strictly a victim.
But is he a rabid dog? A rabid dig is without hope; a once innocent creature killed by disease but left horrifically animated with no other purpose than to spread harm. A vampire is a rabid dog.
Frankenstein’s monster hasn’t learned to be human yet. He’s been tragically thrust into existence with all the tools to cause harm and is expected to have the tools for self control but has been given none. He’s a chimp with a handgun. People scream “stop that chimp with a handgun”, and some point out the man that captured, transported, armed, and let loose the chimp, but to equate the two as equally liable is wildly absurd.
The part about the monster is that he may have been able to be more than a chimp with a hand gun. Maybe not much more; a Bonobo with a bazooka maybe, or Hans Delbruck (I hope you get this reference). I don’t think there’s more to it that Shelly was getting at with the monster (though again I haven’t read it), but the implications and thoughts after the fact are interesting
In the book, Frankenstein’s monster is a tragic character but also kills several people without real justification or remorse. He shouldn’t be romanticized either. Both he and his creator are villains.
Then again, the movie doesn’t sound like it’s going for a faithful adaptation, so maybe this version is strictly a victim.
I haven’t read the book, but do you blame the monster for killing, anymore than a rabid dog?
But is he a rabid dog? A rabid dig is without hope; a once innocent creature killed by disease but left horrifically animated with no other purpose than to spread harm. A vampire is a rabid dog.
Frankenstein’s monster hasn’t learned to be human yet. He’s been tragically thrust into existence with all the tools to cause harm and is expected to have the tools for self control but has been given none. He’s a chimp with a handgun. People scream “stop that chimp with a handgun”, and some point out the man that captured, transported, armed, and let loose the chimp, but to equate the two as equally liable is wildly absurd.
“tHe cHiMp sHouLd kNoW bEtTeR…” smh
The same could be said for American politics…
The part about the monster is that he may have been able to be more than a chimp with a hand gun. Maybe not much more; a Bonobo with a bazooka maybe, or Hans Delbruck (I hope you get this reference). I don’t think there’s more to it that Shelly was getting at with the monster (though again I haven’t read it), but the implications and thoughts after the fact are interesting
Tap for spoiler
Yes. He is able to reason as a man does, and so he is held to a similar standard.