Frankenstein and his creature are in fact the same person

When considering this question angiotensin converting enzyme must first cultivate note of the discrepancy mingled with the literal presentation of the relationship in the midst of Frankenstein and his prick, and the figurative presentation of that. Are Shelleys intentions predominantly to bring our attention to the fixed sequence of evets to perceive the story in a literal manner or to a more implicit message an analogy of bodily union between the two antagonists?Of course, today, when one utters the name Frankenstein the first image thought up is that of a detestable, monstrous, green entity with bolts through the neck. This is indeed erroneous when taking Shelleys novel into account, yet it still offers us an allusion to the idea of the double. It has frequently been suggested that the creature assumes the role of a doppelginger or alter-ego to Frankenstein. That he is merely an extension, or reflection of his creator (indeed creature implies creator).They both assume var ious synonymous roles through give away the novel for example, their corresponding isolation, the omission of distaff influence in their matters, their juxtaposed intentions to take revenge, and of course the simple fact that Victor is presented as a solitary p bent to the creature the only person with whom the creature has an emotional bond. So, let us first look at this issue of Victors and the creatures father-son relationship. Of course, the common interpretation of this matter is that Frankenstein manages to usurp the roles of both God and the female.What is the difference between a figurative and a literal analogy?Indeed, same(p) father like son has a profound meaning here, and the creature is, in effect Victors confess vampire his child. The most indicative portrayal of this usurping of the female (the mother) follows immediately after the creatures awakening, with Frankensteins horrifically symbolic dream of Elizabeth his potential and prearranged partner existence d egraded into the corpse of his utterly mother. This does seem to provide an implicit metaphor for sexual depravity that Victors exploits lead him to isolate himself from both the worlds populace and, in turn, any form of carnal satisfaction.let us, then, look further into this issue of isolation. The reasons for both Victors and the creatures solitude differ markedly, but are nevertheless explicably connected. Victor is essentially isolated by his Promethean strive for friendship how dangerous is the acquirement of k presentlyledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native t protest to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow This Victors own allege provides us with an allusion to a man punching above his weight (to entrap it facetiously).As with Prometheus the Greek Titan Victor, in the early parts of the novel, contemplates the power of fire (this trek into the inglorious when taking into account Waltons ominous exp edition to the Arctic has also led critics to propose a Frankenstein-Walton double). This knowledge is then utilised by him in the basis of his creature in parallel with Prometheus, striking discontent with godly authority. As the 1931 film version of Frankenstein adequately made out, Now I know what its like to be God. Frankenstein is an introvert departing the archetypal family vivification to take up his place at Ingolstadt.He concedes vast quantities of his own life to create life the monster being his Adam. It is therefore rather ironic that this concession of life is seemingly deemed worthless and a waste after Victor abandons his creature. The reason for this renunciation is essentially predicated on the creatures repulsive physical appearance his ominous manifestations striking fear into his creator. This now brings us onto the creatures reasons for isolation. He is an castaway from the world to the extent that even those he thought to be well-natured and underst anding the De Lacey family callously repel him.He is excluded from domestic life, albeit involuntarily, i la his creator. Looking at one interpretation, we might scan this rebuttal of oddities as an attack by Shelley on societal conditioning (displayed effectively by the young, innocent Williams preconceptions of the monster as an ogre and a fanatic) and the corrupt narrow-minded outlook of society towards what, on the surface, appears to be evil, but is in fact benevolent (the creature being a noble savage). The monsters postal service arouses a poignant sense of pity in the reader.His solitude a common theme throughout Gothic literature forces him into malignity (this word having been retell frequently throughout the novel by Victor as narrator). The creature is, therefore, not just a reflection of Adam, but also of Satan an outcast from heaven (of course, the monsters heaven can possibly be interpreted to be the respect and understanding of man towards him). Furthermore, the creature strikes similarities with John Miltons representation of Satan in nirvana Lost (Better to tackle in Hell than to serve in Heaven).The monsters murderous exploits cast an ominous light over him he is now the villain. What we can see, then, is a complex matrix of doubles the creature and Adam, the creature and Satan, Frankenstein and God, Frankenstein as the parental dichotomy and, of course, the creature and Frankenstein. Another pointer to there being a bodily union between the two antagonists comes in the form of their intentions namely, that of revenge. The creature intends to take revenge on his creator and conversely the creator intends to take revenge on his creature.One interpretation is that this is an embodied symbol of one man Frankenstein (this introvert) attempting to suppress the ugly, odious side of his nature. One can draw parallels with Robert Louis Stephensons 1886 novella The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde the split personality indicatin g a doppelginger motif holding weight throughout the Gothic genre. The creatures and the creators intentions, their natures and, of course, their purpose are all intertwined. The monster is Victors own spirit let loose from the grave, and forced to destroy all that was dear to him.Indeed, Frankenstein feels equally culpable for the deaths of William, Justine, Elizabeth and Clerval. Like the monster, Victor had begun life with benevolent intentions and thirsted for the moment when he should put them in practice and make myself useful to my fellow beings But progressively they both as an interrelation decline into being feeble, malignant characters. These intentions and emotional attachments do poke out to intricately link both the creator and his creature (God and Adam, father and son).Other literally presented occurrences in the novel, for example, the arrest of Frankenstein in Ireland for the murder of Henry continue to add on evidence of Shelleys overriding intention. This de tainment was no mistake. It was just now a figurative portrayal of Victors arrest at the expense of his darker side both he and the creature are equally culpable and both are one and the same. Also, Aya Yatsugi offers the notion of a mirror stage. Frankenstein and the creatures perception of each other through the window in the Orkneys equal to a reflection.This being supplemented by Victors destruction of the creatures mate and the subsequent murder of Elizabeth by the creature again, the sequence of events is too intricate and precise for us to rule out the possibility for Shelleys intentions to have been for that of the double (this dichotomous murder of partners also continues to support the omission of the female). To summarise, then, it is of great import that there is nothing to rule out the possibility of Shelley delivering this work as a purposeful analogy pointing to a bodily union of Frankenstein with his monster.Of course, we must understand that if one is to perceiv e the novel in this manner it will always be subjective and never constant. Yet, the evidence is there, as a supplement, for those who harbour this view. The creature and creator are spiritually one and the same. Their positions in the narrative and corresponding actions are crucially paralleled. Victor is the creatures father, Victor is the creatures God, Victor is the creatures focus of vengeance, and Victor is the only entity with which (possibly with the exception of the De Laceys) the creature has a affectingly governed relationship.Yet, to say that these two characters are the same person is possibly stretching this idea to an unaccountable degree. Indeed, they may just be separate characters with strong parallels Shelleys narrative simply outlining their synonymy and corresponding situations. Maybe Shelleys message is essentially bringing our attention to the fact that these two characters, despite being at each others throats throughout, still bind such a powerful underst anding and spiritual bond. Nevertheless, this issue will forever be open to argument.