A reaction paper to “Frankenstein”
The story of Frankenstein
introduced the idea that the scientific pursuits of people have moral
consequences, and thus, valuations. It then asks the perennial utilitarian
question: does the need of the many outweigh the few? This is seen in the
struggles of the monster after the scientist has created him. It may be good
for the world to know that electricity or lightning could resurrect life. But
some may not like to live again. Worse, some may be reborn no longer
themselves. In other words, they’re new people. Like babies, only ugly,
deformed and made out of stitched meat.
Furthermore, a creature that could
speak but not well so may not have been a good strategy for the creator of the
film. The difference between an individual that does not speak the language of
the many and an individual who endeavors but struggles to is this: the former
may be interpreted as a boycott of the society in protest, while the latter is
an attempt of a lessor mortal to assimilate, but failing to do so.
It is best to interpret the
morality of Frankenstein as no different from the morality of countless
revolutionaries that refuse to accept the things they can’t change, and change
the things they can’t accept. With all the blubber, stutter and gibber. Even if
they would be used as pawns by their superiors.
Malcolm Aniag
2012-10792
No comments:
Post a Comment