Monday, May 16, 2011

The Nameless Creature

Why is Frankenstein’s creature never given a name?

24 comments:

strawpie_13 said...

Frankenstein's creature remains nameless throughout the book because when the father rejected him he didn't want to have any connections to him. By naming his creature, it would have meant that he claims him as his son. Also as the monster didn't interact with any humans so much because he scared people away apart from the blind De Lacy. Therefore he didn't really need one. We humans have names because we need Identification cards, birth certificates and other important papers but in his case when he traveled he sneaked around so no one saw him.

LoL*Girl13 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LoL*Girl13 said...

Keeping the monster within Frankenstein nameless has a significant impact upon the reader and the story. First of all with the monster not receiving a name, it remains an it, unworthy of empathy or human emotions. This makes the reader so much more willing to think the monster as a cold blooded murderer and unfeeling. An it is below humans, keeping the monster low, and thus Victor and the reader will feel more justified to kill it. Now if it were a person with an actual name it would be harder to overcome the breach of “thou shall not kill”.
As humans we can best relate to other humans, these humans have names, feelings, and sometimes even intelligence. However a “beast” without a name is not seen worthy of feelings or understanding. However this is not the case with the monster since it is feeling and smart, showing just another injustice has been done to him.
Also being nameless shows the loneliness and bleak future of Frankenstein’s monster. Since no one loves him and no one wants to interact with him he never receives a name and never will. However it hints at the fact that even the monster sees himself as far less then a human, (like an animal or something) because he never names himself, which he could well do. All in all staying nameless keeps the monster a true fiend.

Fashion Minded Girl said...

- Response to LoL*Girl13 -
Let me tell you that what your saying is really good and I totally agree, but is it true that a nameless beast without a name is not seen worthy of feelings or understanding? Do you think that if a hideous beast had a name will actually change how society view's him? Even if our creature was named, what would really changed, people will still reject him and be afraid of him. Maybe he's nameless because his own father never named him and he actually never found it that important to have a name.

yianniwoods1234 said...

I'm going to have to agree with LoL*Girl13, since I feel that not knowing the name of the monster makes me feel like it's less of a human and more of a monster. I too believe that this was used to keep the reader thinking of some hideous beast, that is seen this way from Frankensteins point of view, and this may submerge you into the book more.

LilMissBritain said...

-Reponse to strawpie_13-
I agree that Victor didn't name the monster in order to keep any connections to him minimal, however I also think that by not naming his creature he's almost trying to carry on as if he'd never existed. It may have been implemented to characterize Victor. The reader's yet again shown another example of Victor's selfishness and how heartless he can be. It also shows us how Victor thinks of his creation as by not naming him he's almost acting like he's not human and he doesn't have feelings which ties in with how he treats him throughout the majority of the novel.

Daniela said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pometa said...

Naming a child or a pet implies that there is a personal relationship, for naming someone/something involves thought and love. A parent takes time to think of a name for its child, because from that point on, the child will identify with the name and the name itself gives the child a place to belong within its family.
Frankenstein never named the monster because he didn’t have any feeling of love or responsibility towards his creation. Instead, he calls him by degrading names such as “fiend”, “wretch”, or “daemon”. He probably thought that the monster didn’t deserve a name because in Frankenstein’s view, he is a thing that is evil. The fact that he doesn’t even name his creation means that Frankenstein didn’t want him from the beginning, and it was a rejection of his creation. The monster probably noticed this too and is well aware that his creator sees him only as a horrible mistake.
The monster can only identify himself with the cruel words Frankenstein has called him, and that is probably one of the numerous factors that lead the monster to act violently.

Antonia said...

Frankenstein has been doing his creation with a very big excitment and a lot of hard work. When he finished his was very disapointed because he wasn't expecting to see his creation giant, with yellow eyes. It was the opposit of what he wanted. I think Frankestein's creature did not get a name because he was rejected from his own creator because of his looks, he didn't seem a proper human so he didn't think he should give him a name, he looked like a monster and he got the name of the monster , he expected something normal and once the result was different he could not act normal. I have a neighbore who gave birth to a child with many abnormalities. The child grew up and we as new neighbores we never got to know about him, the mother never speaks about the child and she keeps him in a special home center. Perhaps she is visiting him, but she never brings him home. Frankestein deslike his creation. But can a mother deslike her own child? I could not but compare these two things.

WoW:) said...

Frankenstein’s creature was not a human being after he was given life. It was a monster like creature which no one wanted to be related to. Therefore, monsters do not have names like people because nobody wants to communicate and socialize with them so they do not need names. It is just an awful monster without identity so it is not necessary to have a name. As soon as Victor sees it he runs away, his creator who was responsible for it, did not want to have anything to do with it. If his own creator does not care about it and he does not accept it and reject it then how would it be possible for other people to accept it?

Apoelistas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Apoelistas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Apoelistas said...

I think that the creature should have been given a name because it also was once humans who had names and still is, with feelings. In other words it could be an intelligent life if he was taken care of properly. If he was given a name he could have woken up from his savageness and maybe save some lives but instead Frankensteins greediness prevented something which could have turned out just fine.

http://www.youtube.com/user/au13apoel?feature=mhee#p/u/0/oOsz3LaThSo

THIS IS THE VIDEO OF ACHILEAS BRIDGE!!

yazan dabbagh said...

The monster in the novel Frankenstein isn’t given a name to symbolize the lack of a loving parent and self identity. Most parents name their children (creation) something that means a lot to them, like their parents’ name or the name of someone famous or any name as long as it is special to them. The reason why Victor doesn’t name the monster is because he is disgusted by what he has created rather than being proud. When a parent bears a child they feel like they have contributed to this world but Victor feels like he made a huge mistake and has harmed mankind. Victor mentions him in the book as a beast, monster, demon and devil and this shows his extreme hatred towards the monster. In addition I think that names would be the last thing that both the monster and Victor would be thinking about when they are in this situation.

JoBros-Leni said...

I agree with Yazan, I'm pretty sure the name is the last thing on Victor's mind. All he does is call him wretched fiend - Maybe the monster thinks that's his name. Reading all the books he has and being introduced to characters with names, the monster must have wondered if he had a name or probaby named himself.

DcIpodman said...

I agree with yazan and eleni. In frankentsien victor didnt have much time to name his creation because he is disgusted with the monster throughout the whole novel. Furthermore, Victor is positively attached to his monster therefore he does not feel the emotional need to name the monster.

omonoia9 said...

In the novel “Frankenstein" the monster is nameless. Victor never gave a name to the monster.
I believe that Victor didn't give any name to the monster is that he didn't want to have any connection with the monster, another reason that Victor didn't give any name to the monster is that the monster isn't a human it's a body made up of organs and body parts of other people.
Victor probably didn't want to give a name to the monster because he regretted for his creation.
Last, the monster represents evil and people normally avoid giving names to all evil.

Sel said...

The main reason why Frankenstein’s monster is not given a name is so that the reader does not identify with him in any way or sympathise with him. If he were given a name that would make him almost human and make it possible for Victor Frankenstein and the reader to love him. He would be like a pet who is given a name and therefore becomes a part of the family. For example if you have a pet rabbit and you give it a name, it’s very difficult then to kill it and eat it. In this way the monster remains just that, a monster to be feared and certainly not loved. Moreover, it symbolises the monster’s lack of sense of self and identity.

Alaz said...

-----Response to Pometa------
I totally agree with you but I think that you forgot to talk about something and that is that people name their child when the child is born, so I think that Frankenstein was going to name it when he was done creating it and when he was creating it he actually loved the creation he was making and was proud of it, but then when his creation was done, he thought that he made something so ugly that he ran away from it so he actually didnt have any time to name it and it is also like you said about Frankenstein didnt thought that the monster deserved a name because in his view,his creation is a devil.

Alaz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andreas said...

I believe that keeping the monster nameless is definitely not helping the situation that he's already in. What I mean is that if he was given a name then he would've acted differently, he would've think that he is part of this world and that he's not just a creepy monster. Also the monster would've had some sort of identity so people can recognize him and not just be afraid of him. In the mean time Victor is responsible for not giving him a name and also he is responsible for the death of his brother. If he loved and cared about his creation then he would've given his creation a real name.

Paul Engomites said...

As we all know by now or have learnt throughout the process of reading Frankenstein our novel by Mary Shelly, the monster is not called Frankenstein, Frankenstein is the creator of the monster. Victor creates this monster because he is lonely and just needs a friend and some company through science. After Victor Frankenstein creates him, the monster goes on a rage and runs away, during the course of trying to find him and the letters that were sent Victor does not address him with a name. I think that Victor Frankenstein doesn’t give the monster a name because he doesn’t consider him as a friend or anything at all for that matter , because of the incident after creating the monster. Victor also doesn’t give him a name because he hasn’t found what characteristics he has actually inherited, not that’s how you decide a how to give someone a name, but it has to at least suit him.

Paul Engomites said...

I agree with strawpie_13, if he named the creature it would have meant that Victor claimed him as a son. Aswell as the fact of how us humans give each others names to identify eachother.

marios said...

I believe that the monster was not given a name for 2 reasons. The first one is that Victor was probably too scared to even take a second to think about a name when he first saw how monstrous it looked. Second he probably didn't want to make any connections to it by giving it name like parents do for their children he didn't want to think of it as a successful creation.