How can we apply Kant’s ideas of beauty, the “monstrous” (435), and the “fearful” (438) to Frankenstein’s creature who was consistently deemed repulsive by nearly everyone who encountered him? We know that the creature harbored some truly sensitive and thoughtful insights and might have even been a peaceful beast was he not judged solely on his appearance. Does the creature not fit Kant’s definition: “An object is monstrous if by its magnitude it annihilates the end which its concept constitutes.” (435) The creature – whose power, size and unbearable appearance – does end up doing much more damage than good, but this may have only been because of the aesthetic judgments of the characters surrounding him.
I find Gilbert and Gubar’s illumination of Victor’s childhood to be particularly interesting (231). It would seem that indulgence also plays a major role in the tale of Frankenstein. The most interesting thing about this is not whether Victor was playing God or not, but that he was able to indulge in the many whims that caught his interest. We generally view parents who expose their children to intellectual enrichment to be noble, but what is the flip side to that coin? Where is the parent’s accountability in making sure that indulgences are responsible ones? How much blame does the reader place on Victor’s “deific” father?
See you all at the library tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment