“By monster I mean some horrendous presence or apparition that explodes all of your standards for harmony, order and ethical conduct.”
– Joseph Campbell The Power of MythJoseph Campbell describes his idea of what a monster truly is, in your opinion who from the novel Frankenstein would fit Campbell's definition? Your answer should specify a specific character and your explanation as to why you chose that person. Since this is a make-up assignment you cannot receive higher than a 70 for this assignment.
Last day to post: Thursday, November 18, 2010 at 12am.
Mariella C. Zavala - 5th/6th Period
ReplyDeleteJoseph Campbell's definition for a monster obviously directs a reader's mind to Frankenstein's creature. However, there is a key component in his definition that states "ethical conduct". The creator himself ended up as the real monster. His creature was brought into a world just like a new-born. The creature was unsuspecting, confused, and rejected. Since when is the being who never got a chance at life, had to live in solitude, and was shunned from society, the monster? The creator who created him in a most unethical way, not only rejects his creature because he is disgusted with his own actions, but believes it should be killed. The consequences of his actions resulted in the death of many, his creature is not the real monster in this novel, the negligent creator is.
Obviously, Joseph Campbell's definition of a monster is describing Frankenstein's creature. This is clearly evident because Frankenstein, as well, described his creation as something that looked "horrendous." Not only did his appearance make him a monster, but his actions. Mariella does have a point saying the real monster turns out to be Victor Frankenstein, however, he isn't the monster Campbell describes because his appearance isn't the typical "scary-looking" monster.
ReplyDeleteCampbells definition is describing the monster itself,the word "horrendous" gives it off although the real monster to me is the creater himself.The definition is referring to the monster, the creature was to come out to be the perfect human being but turned out ugly and was rejected by society.
ReplyDeleteI think both Victor and his creature could be classified as monsters by Joseph Campbell's definition because the monster is "horrendous" and disrupts the harmony in the Frankensteins' lives, and what Victor does is unethical.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the true monster in Frankenstein is Victor, the creator. I feel that he fits Joseph Campbell's description. He created life and denied it company and left it alone. He never truly tried to understand his own creation.
ReplyDeleteI would believe that there are two monsters in Frankenstein. Which are Victor and the Creature.Victor would be classified as a monster for bringing a person a person back to life and then abandoning it. Clearly the Creature would also be considered a monster for his appearance and for the horrible things he has done.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Leslie on the idea of there being more than one monster in the novel "Frankenstein" that fits Joseph Campbell's description. For example, the creator, Victor Frankenstein can be a considered a monster because he spent most of his time working on a way to bring the dead back to life, that he was hurting his own health and when his experiment was successful, he felt anger and grotesque because he wasnot happy with the outcome of a hideous creatue and abandonded it out of fear and hate. Similarly, the creaure is considered a mosnter, not much by his appearance, but by his knowledge of morals and consequences and disregards as a way to get back at his creator. In other words, the creature, learned a lot from observation and reading books that he was able to figure out right from wrong and still did back things to his creator.
ReplyDeleteI think that Campbell's definition of a monster is describing Victor Frankenstein and the creature. The creature is considered a monster because of his horrendous presence and how he looks, and what he does. But Victor is the creator, so he is also a monster.
ReplyDeleteGladys Ornelas 5th/6th period
ReplyDeleteTo me I think Victor Frankenstein is the real monster in this story. Like Mr. Campbell mentioned, a monster doesn't have to be horrendous in appearance but rather in their actions. For example, by creating a man out of science and knowledge, basically an abomination, Frankenstein's sins begin to pile. It is through his actions towards his creation that make him "monster-like". In other words, leaving your creature to die rather than helping or supporting it through its first beginning of life. Even though the creature has a monster like appearance, it is the person inside of Victor that makes him the true monster. It is people like him that society should fear.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVictor Frankenstein fits the description that Campbell portrays in his definition of a monster. Frankenstein shatters the natural harmony of human creation by attempting to restore animation to lifeless matter. When he succeeds, he disobeys the standards set forth for order and social ethics by neglecting his obligations to the helpless and frightened creature as his maker and denying him even his simplest request: to have one friend in the world who would care about him. Frankenstein thus exposed and invoked the creature to be evil. His apathetic exterior towards the ones he loves and his lack of guilt for the losses he suffered can be viewed as a horrendous apparition upon humanity, therefore Frankenstein is the true monster.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Gonzalez 1/2
ReplyDeleteI believe Cambell's definition of a monster is exact of what Dr. Frankenstein is. I believe it is unfair of how the creature has always taken the blame for everything. Dr. Frankenstein at one moment in his life did indeed have a "horrendous presence or apparition that explodes all of your standards for harmony, order and ethical conduct.”
I feel like just because the monster killed people that Victor Frankenstien loved his creature was to blame. NewsFlash!!! Frankenstein made the monster. Frankenstein eluded the monsters request to make another human being to sstop all the madness. The creature may have been horrendous on the outside but still was scientifically as smart as Dr. Frankenstein. I believe the real side of a monster comes from within and Victor Frankenstein in fact was the true monster, in the whole novel, acting as a lonely victim.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChristina Aguilera (5/6th pd)
ReplyDeleteIn the eyes of society, Joseph Campbell's quote is clearly directed to the creature because to society a "monster" is one far beyond bliss and harmony. Yet, i agree with mariella when she states that the negligent creator, is the real monster in this novel. The creature didn't choose to come into this world and without guidance, espcially from the person that gave him birth, had brought him to be a confused soul. He did not meet the "ethical standards" of society, but society isn't perfect therefore, the real monster is one who doesn'd deliever genunine truth within themselves to be best they can be to others, even their own creations.
This blog is officially closed....
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete5-6
ReplyDeleteSorry im late Pam i understand if you dont count this but im still gonna post just in case
I agree with Gladys …. Although the monster is responsible for his own actions Victor being the creator of this “horrendous” Monster has in other word broken the balance of nature, has eaten the forbidden fruit and in my eyes is the real Monster in the story. Even though Joseph Campbell is describing what I believe to be the outside of a monster such as his appearance he could also be describing the evil within a real monster.