Frankenstein playing God Essay Example

Frankenstein playing God Paper There are a number of reasons that support the opinion that the creature is a monster; his atrocious appearance unquestionably resembles that of an inhuman being, his fiendish murders are outrageous and disgraceful, and his genesis was simply an experiment of Frankensteins. However, as the reader continues through the novel they begin to realise that despite being cursed with a ghastly appearance, the creature has the personality of a human. He endures feelings of both utter compassion and uncontrollable fury. He can distinguish between good and evil. And his despicable acts can almost be excused as peoples iniquitous behaviour filled him with complete indignation as they failed to even share pleasantries with him. Therefore the creature is human in every way except for his grotesque appearance. In fact if the creature was privileged with a normal exterior then he would be no different from an infant entering the world; he has a thirst for knowledge, he desires a loved one, and he is dramatically influenced by his surroundings. Therefore, Mary Shelley creates the question: What possesses the creature to behave in such a despicable way? I believe the answer is the abysmal way in which humans behave towards him. If people didnt behave in such a hostile manner then there is no question in my mind that the creature would have behaved no differently to a typical human being. Throughout the novel the creature is consistently burdened by his hideous appearance. We will write a custom essay sample on Frankenstein playing God specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Frankenstein playing God specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Frankenstein playing God specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer At the creatures creation Frankenstein describes his exterior in detail: His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips. This clearly describes an abhorrent and monstrous exterior where even the few human qualities detract from his overall appearance. The muscles and arteries protruding through the yellow skin, the peculiar eyes and sockets, and the repulsive lips create a disturbing imagine, however its the human qualities of the white teeth and lustrous black hair that make his appearance sound so sickening, as if qualities that a human desire simply worsen his overall exterior then he must be the most inexcusably grotesque creature ever created. However, the above quote is not the only description we have of the creatures appearance. We learn how frightfully hideous the creature really is when he first views his reflection. At first I started back, unable to believe that it was indeed I who was reflected in the mirror; and when I became fully convinced that I was in reality the monster that I am, I was filled with the bitterest sensations of despondence and mortification. The creature is not upset or saddened by his appearance but mortified. He is so revolting that his reflection caused him to start back in fright. However as the creature detests his appearance this quote can be used as evidence supporting the point that he is a human, as all humans desire a more attractive exterior. Appearance is meaningless to a monster, as it does not long for a companion, whereas a human does. Therefore I believe this quote supports the point that he is a human. The best passage, however, in the novel to describe how foul the creature really looks is when the cottagers observe him; Who can describe their horror and consternation on beholding me? Agatha fainted; and Safie, unable to attend to her friend, rushed out of the cottage. This quotation illustrates how nauseating the creature is as he immediately alarms anyone who glimpses at him. This explains that he is not just ugly or unattractive but so alien that people cannot even sustain consciousness when they come into contact with him. This is a definitely a reason supporting the idea that the creature is a monster. However, although his exterior is monstrous, that does not make him a monster. We learn that the creature has the capability to distinguish between right and wrong; I did not strive to control myself. This illustrates that the creature has the ability to control his emotions which is a trait that a monster lacks. The language the creature used portrays a character showing remorse, as he does not use the casual word; didnt he used the words; did not. If he had said this in a casual way it would insinuate that the creature shows no remorse and thinks of the disgraceful act as a usual occurrence. However, as he spoke in a formal and powerful manner, he shows regret and remorse. In the creatures narrative we learn that the creature desires more than just the raw animal needs of warmth, food and water. Instead, he behaves similar to an infant learning about his surroundings. The creature describes the difficulty of walking, eating and speaking. He describes his thoughts when he comes into contact with fire; In my joy I thrust my hand into the live embers, but quickly drew it out again with a cry of pain. How strange, I thought, that the same cause should produce such opposite effects! This is vital evidence that the creature is human as he is not angered by the pain as a monster would, but is simply curious; How strange. Not only is the creature curious about his surroundings, but he gains a thirst for knowledge. He has a clear interest in the world. He wants to know why the cottagers are both content and miserable at times. He wants to know where hes placed on the social hierarchy. He wants to discover the history of earth. Therefore when the book Ruins of Empire came into his possession he studied it fervently, which excited a mixture of feelings. This is definitive evidence that the creatures personality is human, as not only does he have a keen interest in knowledge but the tales animated feelings of both compassion and fury as he empathized with the characters. A monster is selfish. It cannot understand feelings of compassion as it cannot empathize. It lives to eat, drink and sleep and has no other interests. The creature has acquired a passionate interest in knowledge and is capable of feelings of compassion. Therefore, despite having the appearance of a monster, he has the personality of a human being. The creatures narrative of himself is a complete contrast to Frankensteins narrative of the creature. Frankenstein tells the story of a vile monster thoughtlessly killing innocent people.

Critical Thinking on Female Perpetrators

Critical Thinking on Female Perpetrators Critical Thinking on Female Perpetrators Critical Thinking on Female Perpetrators: While conducting the following literature review of female perpetrators committing violence towards their spouse and children, many ideas and practices discussed are the same, yet some were reviewing violence from both male and females point of view. Nonetheless, it appears that, in all the reviewed articles, the researchers tend to agree that cases of female perpetrators committing violence towards their spouses and children are indeed there. It is undoubtedly that most researches address male-to-female violence, although the articles reviewed here are among those addressing male victimization by female spouses. Physical abuse and violence between spouses and children is the focus of this literature review and it has continued to spark more debate within areas of social policy, practice, and research. In the discussion that will follow, the focus will be on comparing and contrasting the articles, analyzing them critically, and looking at the key concepts. According to Wilkes Cho (2009), violence taking place within a relationship, which is intimate in nature is a big social problem. In their observation, the victims, be it children or spouses suffer intense psychological, mental, and physical impacts of violence. It is only after police intervened that most perpetrators have been arrested. In contrast, Feldman and Ridley (2003) hold that, in the last ten years, there has been witnessed increased awareness in the public regarding domestic violence and the consequences it has on the well-being of the family and individuals involved. Although most attention has been geared towards male violence on their spouses and children, studies show that female violence towards their spouses is evident in intimate relationships. In view of Feldman and Ridley (2003), there tends to be equal percentages of females (12%) and males (11%) recorded of being violent towards their partners. In a study of 272 couples intending to get married, majority of fe males than males recorded cases of being violent towards their spouses at (44% vs. 31%) in pre-marriage, and (36% vs. 27%) in post-marriage of 18 months, and (32% vs. 25%) in a post-marriage of 30 months. While comparing Sarantakos (2004), and Taylor et al. (2009), it is obvious that maltreatment of both spouses and children is real owing to female perpetrators. According to Taylor et al. (2009), close to one million cases of physical abuse and other children maltreatment cases were reported in America in 2005. Unfortunately, high victimization rate is evident in kids who are below three years of age. In their observation, children who are victimized by their mothers suffer behavioral, mental, physical, and social problems and this might lead to problems of health such as smoking, alcoholism, STDs, heart disease, and obesity. In the 83% of the maltreatment meted on children, the mother alone contributes 40%, while the father is rated at 17%, and the rest 6% is from other people. Nonetheless, the mothers are associated with the highest percentage because they spend most time with children that anybody else (Taylor et al. 2009). In contrast, Sarantakos (2004) observes that there is dive rsity regarding how the society is responding towards ‘wives’ violence against their husbands (p.1). However, irrespective of irrefutable evidence that female are assaulting their male counterparts, most people tend to hold that the violence comes in equal proportions, an idea echoed by Feldman and Ridley (2003). In his study Sarantakos (2004) found out that, female-to-male violence was evident even with the males being peaceful in their homes. In a separate study by Kern smith and Kern smith (2009), the last two decades have seen policymakers in the United States maximizing their attention towards domestic violence. Unlike Sarantakos (2004), and Taylor et al. (2009) who focus on increased violence by females towards their males, Kern smith and Kern smith (2009) strive to examine recommendations of changing policies and intervention services to guide perpetrators. At a glance, these articles are characterized by themes, disagreements, and commonality. In view of Kern smith and Kern smith (2009) article, the authors have focused on providing recommendations to policy makers on what should be done to perpetrators of violence be it males or females. The two assert that, considering men are known for being violent towards their female counterparts, they have suffered more arrests. These findings, therefore, indicate that, the motivations and context of males being arrested for being violent are different from females arrested for committing similar crime. In the articles by Sarantakos (2004), Taylor et al. (2009), Wilkes Cho (2009), and Feldman and Ridley (2003) the thematic concerns of violence and its consequences on spouses is common. The authors tend to agree that violence in relationships lead to physical, psychological, health, and mental consequences to both children and spouse under violence. Additionally, in order to substantiate their c laims, Wilkes Cho (2009), and Feldman and Ridley (2003) have employed statistics to show the extent of violence reported among spouses. Most spouses in violent relationships suffer ridiculing, name-calling, instances of blaming, criticizing, threatening, and accusing. Spouses do these actions mutually, and in some cases by spouse unilaterally, while in some cases some spouses did not participate (Feldman Ridley, 2003). In some articles such as Wilkes Cho (2009), Taylor et al. (2009), and Feldman and Ridley (2003) there is a common practice regarding the manner in which the researches were conducted. In each case, the authors employed study samples, findings, results, discussion, and conclusion. In their article, Wilkes Cho (2009) identified their study variables as re-victimization, arrest, and gender. According to their results, male victimization and female victimization differed. Males were meted serious assaults at 28%, while their female counterparts stood at 17%. Additionally, females were fond of using weapons on their spouses although both parties suffered serious injuries. On the other hand, Taylor et al. (2009) based their variables on child-related and child maltreatment. Their results indicated that, mothers recorded over twenty cases of psychological violence, and seventeen cases of physical violence. Most mothers use physical and psychological violence against their loved ones, and cases of neglect of their children. In their conclusion, Taylor et al. (2009) asserted that most females, who mistreated their children, were equally being harassed in their relationships. In their research, Feldman and Ridley (2003) identified their variables such as verbal aggression, withdraw, and cooperation. The two employed questionnaire in their work, which was addressed to the 153 females, who were volunteers. In their results, the researchers asserted that, although studies exist regarding domestic violence severity are limited; a distinction exists between severe and mild types of domestic violence. In their conclusion, the researchers observed that, while 75% of females are reported as physically abused, they are aware that they are likely to be wounded owing to domestic violence. Although these articles tend to agree on violence orchestrated by female perpetrators, there are some disagreements on opinions explored by the authors. For instance, Wilkes Cho (2009) observe that men are most victimized in violent relationships while compared with their female counterparts who experience fewer injuries. For that reason, it is apparent that violence among spouses predominantly male. Additionally, the two authors found out that, females are fond of using weapons than their male spouses. Nonetheless, Feldman and Ridley (2003) tend to disagree with the former two regarding violence. Unlike Wilkes Cho (2009), Feldman and Ridley (2003) hold that women are most victimized, and they are likely to experience injuries because of violence from their spouses. Furthermore, unlike females, males are known for being extremely violent towards their partners. According to Feldman and Ridley (2003), conflicts in relationships are brought mostly by poor communication. Further disag reement is evident, if the observation made by Sarantakos (2004) is anything to put into consideration. According to Sarantakos (2004), husbands play a key role in sparking violence in their marriages. In his findings, the researcher retorts that husbands are fond of sparking aggressions, which in return force their female partners to be violent towards them. Prior to assaulting their partners, females tolerated with the unpleasant behaviors of their males and they only responded on realizing the impending danger (Sarantakos, 2004). From a critical point of view, some of these articles exhibited limitations from the context of the research. In the article by Wilkes Cho (2009), there are evident limitations. Firstly, the number of males who were put under re-victimization was extremely small (33 of the possible 298 victims). Additionally, considering that out of the 33 men under re-victimization, less than ten were put behind bars, it is clear that detecting the impacts of arrest would be difficult, in the event there was any. Furthermore, there is a likelihood of underreporting female-oriented violence. In yet another limitation, the research failed to include vital contextual details regarding episodes of violence, and those who initiated it and the reasons for such actions. Moreover, the response by security authority was disregarded, and the actions, which were taken on the perpetrators (Wilkes Cho, 2009). Limitations are also evident in the article by Feldman and Ridley (2003). For instance, although the r esearch revolves around communication responses as one of the factors contributing towards violence among spouses, the researchers did not explore the connection between psychological types of abuse, and responses of communication. It would have been better if the research by the two authors were based on a wide range of communication trends, which may lead to domestic violence. In view of Kern smith and Kern smith (2009) article, implications are evident. For instance, irrespective of the study suggesting that women needs on intervention services are different from those of men, the research failed to offer an alternative. Although numerous programs have been developed, the study fails to mention that their accountability is minimal. In Taylor et al. (2009), the article only considered limited details regarding psychological, sexual, and physical behaviors of aggression. In the article, the authors excluded confounders such as history of aggression in the female’s origin, th us leading to biasness on estimates of regression. While reviewing the five articles, key concepts are evident in each of them. In their context, each of the articles has employed unique but important practices while conducting the study. In each of the study, the researchers based their work on a wide range on previous researches. In the journal by Kern smith and Kern smith (2009), the two backdated their research in the last two decades in connection with policymakers in America. Additionally, in order to give the reader a better understanding of the intervention services on batterers, the authors have reviewed the changes, which have been enacted from two decades ago. In Taylor et al. (2009) article, the researchers based their predictions of maternal maltreatment and neglect from a study that run from 2001 to 2004. For that reason, the researchers came up with a study, which was reliable, if the materials used in the research are anything to go by. Sarantakos (2004) made his study more reliable because he based his work on real l ife experiences issues affecting spouses. Additionally, the research targeted the entire family from children to parents to grandparents. In other words, Sarantakos (2004) bases his findings and results on a specific real-life case, as opposed to generalization. In view of the above literature review, the authors of the articles conducted studies revolving around the thematic concerns of domestic violence orchestrated by female perpetrators, and its effect on children and spouse. Basing their studies on statistics and findings previously exhibited in previous researches, the authors have assisted the readers to understand the objective of their research. Nonetheless, the studies are characterized by numerous limitations such as biasness, lack of recommendations, and limited comparisons to warrant the impacts among others. However, the authors have incorporated key concepts in their work thus making it reliable, and of high quality. If you are looking for professional critical thinking writing services to get your academic paper written from scratch, visit us!