Wrapping up Frankenstein
Greetings!
Today is our final blog on Frankenstein (and I am NOT asking for test questions as per our conversation in class Friday). I am, however, going to ask you to write a response to one of these thoughts:
1. What lessons, if any, does Frankenstein have to offer 21st centure biologists? (Think cloning, stem cell research, genetic engineering, etc.)
2. What evidence is there in the novel to support the idea that the monster is the protagonist of the story? If the monster is the protagonist, then what role does Victor Frankenstein play?
3. In your opinion, who is the more sympathetic character, Frankenstein or the monster?
4. In Chapters 7 and 8, Shelley seems to be making a comment about the system of law and justice during her time through the trial of Justine (the name itself being a play on the word "justice"). What tone does Shelley use to present justice?
5. Compare and contrast the relationship between Victor and his creation with the relationship of God and humanity. What might Shelley have been trying to say about the relationship between God and humanity with her novel?
6. Do you consider Frankenstein to be a well-written, well-crafted novel? Where does Shelley succeed and where does she fail? Did you like this novel? Why or why not?
7. From what moral framework -- if any -- does the author seem to be writing?
No matter which thought you choose to answer, be sure to back up your stance with evidence from the text.
See you Tuesday, for our wrap-up of this novel and our preparation for your test on Wednesday!
Count it all joy!
Love,
Mrs. D
posted by Sister Sara @ 9:34 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
5. Compare and contrast the relationship between Victor and his creation with the relationship of God and humanity. What might Shelley have been trying to say about the relationship between God and humanity with her novel?
lol! I think she was trying to say that God made man, and then just left him alone and defenseless in a cruel world, and refused to do his duty to man. That's basically it.
I think that Frankenstein was meant to be the more sympathetic character, but people end up feeling more sorry for the monster than they do him. When you find all the terrible things that happens to Frankenstein, you want to feel bad but then you just remember that he brought this all on himself and he's not doing anything to stop it. Frankenstein is a sissy. I don't like him. But, when you see how the monster just wants a friend and a mate you go "awww" in your mind or out loud and you feel bad for him. Even though the monster is going around killing all these people you still feel bad for him.
Do you consider Frankenstein to be a well-written, well-crafted novel? Where does Shelley succeed and where does she fail? Did you like this novel? Why or why not?
Frankenstein was well thought out and creative. Shelley was especially effective in convincing the reader that there was no hope of ever stopping the monster. However, it didn't make much sense that the monster could just show up wherever Victor was without anyone else ever seeing him (ie. how in the world did he get to Scotland?). This wasn't the best book I've ever read; it was kind of depressing, but I didn't not enjoy it.
Answering question Numeral Uno!
I think present day biologists could learn quite a bit from Frankenstein. First off, God created man to glorify him and whatever man does should glorify him. Frankenstein was creating a monster for his own glorification as well as he wanted to help others. Well I'm sure if we had any breakthroughs on thes areas, we would seek the fame for ourselves, and even though we might intend to help others, it could be detremental. I also agree with 001010...whatever it is, I think its Jeff M? But yeah, never design anything that's as smart as you and is more physically capable than you. It they're just as smart, or smarter than you with a physical advantage, then you're hopeless. One more thing we can all learn from Dr. Franky, if we lose sight of God or our family or our priorities get out of line, our emotions and physical condition will spiral down after we complete our task, whether a succes or a failure.
1. What lessons, if any, does Frankenstein have to offer 21st centure biologists? (Think cloning, stem cell research, genetic engineering, etc.)
First off, before I begin, there is a spelling error! I am shocked and appalled. (Just kidding)
In my opinion, the creature that Frankenstein creates in this masterpiece is actually a better one than normal humans. The monster is superior to humans in every way possible, with the lone (and, in my opinion, insignificant) disadvantage of cosmetic irregularities that are considered "hideous" to the common, shallow man. Indeed, this aspect holds perhaps the most appeal for people looking to further the cloning cause. If we can produce humans with superior muscles but somewhat limited brain capacity (slight mental retardation in certain areas), then what a fantastic source for infantry! What if we can make superior brains at the expense of muscle capacity? We have a race of scientists.
This seems great... if we forget the basic liberty that we as humans seem to enjoy. Yes, people would be much more content with their future secure (for in this world, we could eliminate "defects" either by prevention of their creation or by repairing the brains of people with autism of retardation), but what if you choose to be a banker rather than a soldier? Is it really fair for your mother and father (or, as is far more likely, the government) to decide how you will spend your dying days?
Books such as 1984, We, and Brave New World show us a society in which the government has near complete control, and the results are never pretty. The government has no right to control its citizens with such complete authority.
So, to sum up my rabbit-trail filled speech, I say that Frankenstein shows us why cloning needs to be banned here and now. Yes, there are positive aspects, but the inherent evil present within us, the evil that will ensure global-wide destruction in the (near?) future, makes such a decision a "no-brainer".
Dang, I almost got all the way through without referring to World War III...
Post a Comment
<< Home