Sarah’s comment > Likes and Comments
Like
Well, yeah. Plot-wise. But then you get into what the monster symbolizes.
I just explained in the original post, that there is no proof, except maybe for something that Walton saw (which could have been something else too), that the monster truly existed as a living thing.
Yes, it was defined as being real - by Victor, but if the monster is not real, and Victor is actually crazy and believes in the monster himself, then you expect him to define it as real.
Hm, I actually can see your point of view concerning that. This definitely could be a case of an unreliable narrator (in both cases?) that heartily believes that the creature exists. In order for this to be the case, however, Walton would have to be as delusional as Victor. While I don't think that this is impossible, it seems improbable. But it's possible.
If this is the case, I envision a highly delusional Victor with a severe dual personality case- at least, that's what I can ascertain. It would be a really cool Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde scenario.
You know what? I think I can actually perceive the story both ways now that I think of it.
Walton thinks Frankenstein was a madman at the end of the story. Had it ended at that point, then, yes, we could say Shelley did not intend the Monster to be real. Instead, the Monster reappears and talks to Walton. That's the author's way of confirming what Frankenstein said is real.
Any attempt to say otherwise is pure retcon not supported by the book's narrative.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Dramapuppy
(new)
Sep 29, 2014 01:52PM
Well, yeah. Plot-wise. But then you get into what the monster symbolizes.
reply
|
flag
I just explained in the original post, that there is no proof, except maybe for something that Walton saw (which could have been something else too), that the monster truly existed as a living thing.Yes, it was defined as being real - by Victor, but if the monster is not real, and Victor is actually crazy and believes in the monster himself, then you expect him to define it as real.
Hm, I actually can see your point of view concerning that. This definitely could be a case of an unreliable narrator (in both cases?) that heartily believes that the creature exists. In order for this to be the case, however, Walton would have to be as delusional as Victor. While I don't think that this is impossible, it seems improbable. But it's possible.If this is the case, I envision a highly delusional Victor with a severe dual personality case- at least, that's what I can ascertain. It would be a really cool Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde scenario.
You know what? I think I can actually perceive the story both ways now that I think of it.
Walton thinks Frankenstein was a madman at the end of the story. Had it ended at that point, then, yes, we could say Shelley did not intend the Monster to be real. Instead, the Monster reappears and talks to Walton. That's the author's way of confirming what Frankenstein said is real.Any attempt to say otherwise is pure retcon not supported by the book's narrative.
