Who's who?
For those of you in first or second period, you may remember us batting around the idea of hosting a court, complete with Frankenstein and the monster and their attorneys. The remaining classmates would be the jury. The court would be held to decide who was at fault -- Victor or the monster. Another way to look at it is this: Which character is the protagonist and which is the antagonist? (Refer to your literary terms sheet for Frankenstein for more information.)
Today you get to pretend you are arguing for one or the other, as if you were the attorney or the defendant. Both Victor and the monster are on trial, for all intents and purposes of this blog. Who is to blame for the murders?
State your position and offer evidence to support your view. Debate, debate, debate -- and some rhetoric, too.
Have a little fun!
Love,
Mrs. D
posted by Sister Sara @ 7:04 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Can the “monster” help if it he was created, and then ignored and renounced by the very man who brought him life? Can we really expect such a miserable creature to love a society which gives him to shelter, no acceptance, not even simple touch?
How can we promote values of tolerance, and yet deny this creature entry into our society? Poor William’s death was tragic, yet, this “monster” who stands before you is not guilty of murder, nor has he committed a crime. As Nietzsche once said, “The miserable have no other medicine but hope.” Shall we deny this creation hope? Shall we expect him to live in solitude, even though he requires the same affection we so enjoy? Shall we deny him the very essence of our social nature?
Humans, no matter how they came on this earth, have rights, and one of these is the right to acceptance. Would you condemn a mentally-challenged person if he caused a death? Would you willingly send him to the noose or the chair or the firing squad?
No! You would treat him as a normal human, for although he may be different, he is still one of us. This “monster” that you so despise even now as he humbly sits before you is no different than that retard! He is still human. I can not imagine anyone would be so elitist as to condemn his humanity simply because of his difference in features! Must we, then, condemn and kill the intellectuals of this world, the geniuses, simply because they are different than the common man? Must we all adhere to a standard of conformity? I do not think anyone would be so dense to suggest that we cut down all those who are exceptional, all those who are gifted among us. Will you not wake up and taste the individuality of mankind? I think not!
Judge as you will, but remember… it could easily be you sitting in that chair!
Safe to say that got me excited! This is such a controversial topic, I can't wait to read my fellow classmate's responses :)
I believe that the fact has been accepted that JJ is a highly intelligent being. He is able to learn and reason as well as any other human being. So, for the purposes of this court, let us just assume that he is merely a regular person. It is also true that he did physically take the life of three innocent, unsuspecting people.
Let's look at this scenario. If someone was brought up in a home where he received no love or acceptance, then grew up to be a serial killer, would he be convicted? Of course! No matter how terribly someone was brought up, they are still responsible for what they do.
I believe this same rule should be applied to JJ. Victor's negligence of him was wrong, but it would be no more legally implicating than parents who ignore their children. If Victor had in any way abused his creation, whether physically or mentally, then he could be considered guilty, but he did not.
I do agree with Marissa that Justine's murder can be blamed on Frankenstein. He should have made the truth known instead of hiding it.
So, I believe that JJ is guilty, and that murdering innocent people is wrong no matter what the circumstances are.
In response to dookieheadman:
First, if we used your logic, we could say that all murders are God's judgement. We are all sinners, so JJ or anyone else could kill whomever they chose and get away with it.
Secondly, you gave no proof that God loves JJ. He loves His creation, but JJ is not included in this. Furthermore, there is no indication that JJ is serving God at all.
Thirdly, Victor was no more wicked or sinful than anyone else. Everyone has sinned, thus, if Clerval had had any friends at all, he would have committed the same "sin." No one should be condemned because they are reaching out to someone who is hurting (in this case, Victor).
Fourthly, in Elizabeth's case, God would not punish someone for someone else's sin. This would be completely unjust!
Fifthly, it is very obvious that JJ developed faster than a normal child; a baby would not have been able to keep himself alive as JJ did.
And lastly, your analogy of a 3 year old in a car does not apply to this case, at all. While this would have been a complete accident, JJ was conscious of his decisions and chose to kill these people out of spite and revenge.
This was entirely Victor's fault, if he had not created the moster to begin with, or if he had been nice to his monster, the murders would have never happened.
Okay so this is late, but I wanted to do it. I was out of town with no extra time to do anything but eat sleep and rehearse. SO here I go.
In this "case" are to people, a creator and the creation. The creation has conciously fallen from his perfect guiltless state, and begun to kill. The question is now "Who is responsable for the murders?" Is it Frodugio (that's Joel's name for the Monster) or is Frankenstein guilty for the crimes. As far as guilt goes, the monster appears to have no guilt whereas Frankenstein feels all the guilt. He sees it as a cause and effect situation, which it is. He feels he created the monster and now the monster is killing every one. Naturally it's his fault right? Wrong. God created man and man fell and man sinned correct? So is God guilty of a murder when someone is killed by man? Is God responsable for Adam and Eve eating what was forbidden? If someone would suggest that we'd think them crazy because we know God created man with a free will to choose between right and wrong. Frankenstein created Fradugio with free will. He created him and let him roam free without dictating his choices. Yes, Victor created a hideous being, and yes Fradugio was rejected and hated by mankind, but he obviously has a sense of right and wrong. He obviously knows a lot and obviously understands and can control his emotions. The problem is he did not control his actions or emotions and let them rule him. Then he tried to shift the blame and responsability on his maker since he didn't want to be responsable for himself. A child does the same thing. It pitches a fit until it gets there way or if they do something wrong, the first response is an excuse to shift the responsability onto someone else. So they get punished for, one doing whatever it is they did, and two, for lying or blaming someone else. That's all this is. A kid, with incredible knowledge, shifting the blame from himself to his maker, just as Adam did when he blamed Eve. So what happened, the both got punished for disobeying God's law because they both sinned. Did Frankenstein brake the law by trying to create or sustain life? Is there anything in the worlds law that prohibits medical advancements which would possibly eliminate death? There weren't in the 1700s. The only person who created a crime was Fradugio therefore he should be punished. If you do think Frankenstein should suffer, look at his life. He created his own punishment.
Post a Comment
<< Home