Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Evolution and the Monster

Human nature as argued by Wilson can be understood completely by considering evolution.  The process of certain traits being based on to the future generations based on survival of the fittest can explain says Wilson aspects of human behavior from mate selection to the seemingly selfless acts of altruism.  Applying the general concept of evolution to the monster in Frankenstein is very interesting to consider as the monster is not the product of evolution but rather a product of a product of evolution – a whole new category entirely.  The monster though created in the same form of humans is capable of observation and making inferences, the most of important of which being that he’s separate for the human species.  The monster reflects “And what was I? Of my creation and creator I am ignorant […] I was not even the same nature as man” (Shelley 261).  This realization is what creates the madness and ultimately the destruction of Victor’s evolutionary capacity.
                The monster was not created through a reproductive event or the creation of a new cell from two single sets of chromosomes containing DNA from a mother and a father.  This reproductive event is the core of evolution and diversity as mutations in DNA are the basis for evolution in a species.  Though more importantly to the tale of Frankenstein is not the DNA aspect but the fact that there is a lack of mother and father.  Through understanding human nature through evolution, a mother and father have innate feelings to protect and care for their children because they share their DNA and their children are the ones who can pass on that DNA when they are gone or too old to. Victor has no such innate feelings towards the monster as though he created him not through a reproductive event or even a cloning event where he would share all of the monster’s DNA.  With these lack of feelings towards the monster he does nothing to protect him or even teach him about the outside world.
While the monster views the French family, he with the assumed mental capacities of a human brain, begins to comprehend the feelings and relationships between the father, Agatha, Felix and Safi but he knows that he can never have a unit like it.  He reflects on his observations by saying” I sympathized with and partly understood, but [..] I was dependent on none and related to none”(Shelley 34).  Wilson also argues that the family not only provides protection from the parents but also an advantage evolved from early hunter gatherer man when it was better for survival to be in a pack like unit with the tasks somewhat divided between the sexes evolving the necessity for humans to have “emotional satisfaction” through family relationships (Wilson 139).  Through observing the De Lacey family, the monster sees what he lacks and it finally becomes apparent that he can never hope to share love with humans when he reaches out to the family but is rejected.
                As a result of the family’s rejection, the monster then pursues Victor “consumed by a burning passion” in order to get him to create a mate for himself in the same species (Shelley 332).  He desires this family companionship which he observed in the De Lacey family and perhaps even has the mental processing to have the innate desire himself.  Additionally, another essential aspect of evolution apart from having a parental connection is the desire to pass on genes to the next generation.   An argument from Wilson about the nature of the monster would recognize his desire to have a companion not as a desire to not be alone but to have someone with which he can pass on his genes.  The monster desperately begs Victor saying “it is true we shall be monsters, cut off from all the world, but in that we shall be more attached to one another” (Shelley 329).  While Victor initially concedes to this request fear of the new monster and the potential for a new breed of monsters causes him to break his promise.
                At this point, the monster is the only of his kind without a family, a mate, and the potential to pass on his genes – all three of which are arguably the most motivating factors in human nature because they determine evolution. He decides to take revenge on Victor by killing off his companion Clarvel and his companion and potential mate to pass on his genes Elizabeth.  Through these murders, he is able to hurt Victor by putting him into a similar cut off position as his own.  The monster is an outsider similar but not quite human, with the same desires and motivations but lacking blood relationships, the possibility to pass on genes, and simple companionship.  In the end he is able to remove Victor from his blood relationships by causing him to chase him into the North Pole.  He is also able to prevent Victor from having children and finally is effective in removing the people most dear to him.  In this way the monster and Victor at the end die as ineffective members of their societies from an evolutionary prospective with no offspring, family, or companions.


  1. Note: I realized that I posted the version in which my citations were incorrect. I'll try to edit it here if I can but if I can't for now and I expand upon it for a longer paper, I definitely will then. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks!

  2. Through your essay, I think you bring up some very valid points as to why the monster should not be considered human. I find your entry especially interesting because I basically took the exact opposite approach, but I think this will help me give you some productive counter arguments to consider.
    Although I feel that you are right in stating that Wilson's theory of human nature is biologically driven, I would like to see you use a specific passage to use throughout your argument. Since you are arguing for Wilson, I think your essay would benefit from textual evidence from his work, especially when you are stating about how mothers and fathers care for their children so as to ensure that the genes go on. I'm sure Wilson says something similar in his book, I need to read his words in order to fully comprehend what he means exactly. Do parents care for their children only for this reason, or are there other motivations? And do those other motivations correspond with your argument in your essay?
    I find this happens a few times throughout the essay, and I think it would be a good idea to clarify what exactly Wilson says, and how this applies to the monster. Wen you are making certain claims, such as in the second to last paragraph, when you state that the monster may have an "innate desire" for a family,could that be an argument perhaps for the fact that the monster is human, rather than against? I think that you might want to clarify what you mean by that. Does he feel this way because it's what he has been taught, or because it is essentially programmed into his DNA? You might benefit from having some evidence from Shelley to justify the former argument.
    Also, the interweaving theme of evolution puzzles me towards the end. The monster cannot be human because of his inability to take part in evolution, and he thus, through murder, he deprives his creator of the same thing...Does this mean that all those who have no offspring or family are genetic dead ends, and therefore cannot take place in evolution, making them all like the monster as well? That might just be me misconstruing what you are trying to say, but if that is the case, I think that's an interesting point that I had not considered before, I feel as though it doesn't exactly seem to fit the rest of your essay.

  3. The first paragraph, while not really articulating a focused argument, shows some great thinking. Classifying the monster as a product of a product of evolution might seem obvious in a literal sense, but can have all sorts of important consequences – I’m looking forward to seeing them explored.

    In the second paragraph, you are making somewhat unclear claims about the biological origin of the institutions of parenthood as we know them. I consider this a worthy and important direction – I’d also like to see it become trimmed (if it’s not central to your argument) or for it to perhaps become the introduction, or be combined with the introduction, if it is crucial to your argument – as I suspect you are, because in the third paragraph you’re interested, even more broadly, in the biological origins of family as applied to Frankenstein.

    The last couple paragraphs include some articulate and important thoughts, but they also contain some unnecessary plot summary and, like the essay as a whole, their direction isn’t as clear as it could be.

    Here’s my understanding of your argument: you think that the monster, because he was created outside of normal biological processes, is not understood by Victor as a child. But in spite of his abnormal genesis, he still aspires (for biological reasons? For intellectual ones? I think you lean toward the biological, but it’s somewhat unclear to me) to biological *normalcy* - which Victor fails to give to him, and therefore everything must fall apart.

    I find all of this extremely interesting, but I view your argument as being very much in process – exactly how you understand the Monster’s relationship with biology, or biological normalcy, seems like the central point, but also seems to be in development. If you revise, you want to focus as much as you can on what your actual views are of the Monster’s biology and his relationship with or understanding of his biology – revise focusing on the ideas, not on being faithful to your text as it currently stands.

    Mia’s question at the end, as well as her suggestion to find a way of orienting yourself using Wilson’s text, are both good, valid, and productive ways of focusing your argument – consider both of them seriously, and you might want to do something with both.