Good and evil, a concept that has distracted mankind for countless centuries, and has led to both philosophical, and religious debates worldwide. What can be considered good? What is evil? Are people born good and made into evil? Or are there some beings that are just inherently evil? The concepts get tossed to and fro in every context, with little resolution. In this paper, I will outline how Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde portrays good and evil in a vastly different than that of Frankenstein, and what effects these differences have on the message presented in the novels.
Good is a broad term, and a term that is generally applied to Dr Jekyll to contrast the villainous Mr Hyde, but upon closer scrutiny, what can we say about this so-called virtuous …show more content…
Not many can claim that Dr Frankenstein is the sole source of good within the narrative, as he acts in dire self-interest, and plays god to a new degree. I make a claim that the monster is the corrupted source of good within Frankenstein. He is created by the Dr, and he is blank, almost like a newborn child. He is without knowledge, language, or prejudice, and seeks out his creator unknowingly. Rejected by society he flees into the wilderness, and with his innocent rapture, he eagerly soaks up the sights and sound. He is innocent in the same way an infant is innocent, “Sometimes I tried to imitate the pleasant songs of the birds but was unable. Sometimes I wished to express my sensations in my own mode, but the uncouth and inarticulate sounds which broke from me frightened me into silence again.”(Shelley,6.2). He begins to spy on a family living in a cottage, and his heart fills with joy for them, and sorrow from their woes. He learns language, and tries to imitate them. The monster has naïve beliefs that perhaps these people might look past his monstrous visage and let him into their hearts if he shows them he is not the monster his face brands him. He aids the cottagers, getting firewood and clearing a snowy pathway, he even stops pilfering food from their cabinets as guilt clings to him that they might go hungry. He is what society dictates as ‘good’ in these …show more content…
In the novel, many of the characters have trouble explaining what about Mr Hyde sets them at such an unease. “I set it down to some idiosyncratic, personal distaste, and merely wondered at the acuteness of the symptoms; but I have since had reason to believe the cause to lie much deeper in the nature of man, and to turn on some nobler hinge than the principle of hatred.”(Stevenson, 5.9) Dr Lanyon hints that something visually about Hyde conjures such distaste within him. The author makes it known that compared to Dr Jekyll’s tall, robust form, Hyde is diminished and almost inhumane. This furthers the theme of dehumanization that often accompanies society’s concept of evil, just as in Frankenstein. If humankind can perceive this evil force as something outside of themselves, it makes it easier to hate, to judge, and to harm. The opposite of hideousness was also used in Frankenstein to represent an ideal and serenity that the creature could never own. He often laments these ‘beautiful’ human beings, and extolls the sound and fairness of women’s persons in contrast to his own hideous features. He even begins to equate this attractiveness to goodness, and starts to refer to himself with the same scorn that the persons that reject him heaped. Even when he requests a mate from his creator, he demands his wife be of the same physical unattractiveness as he, for only then does he feel she can
Good is a broad term, and a term that is generally applied to Dr Jekyll to contrast the villainous Mr Hyde, but upon closer scrutiny, what can we say about this so-called virtuous …show more content…
Not many can claim that Dr Frankenstein is the sole source of good within the narrative, as he acts in dire self-interest, and plays god to a new degree. I make a claim that the monster is the corrupted source of good within Frankenstein. He is created by the Dr, and he is blank, almost like a newborn child. He is without knowledge, language, or prejudice, and seeks out his creator unknowingly. Rejected by society he flees into the wilderness, and with his innocent rapture, he eagerly soaks up the sights and sound. He is innocent in the same way an infant is innocent, “Sometimes I tried to imitate the pleasant songs of the birds but was unable. Sometimes I wished to express my sensations in my own mode, but the uncouth and inarticulate sounds which broke from me frightened me into silence again.”(Shelley,6.2). He begins to spy on a family living in a cottage, and his heart fills with joy for them, and sorrow from their woes. He learns language, and tries to imitate them. The monster has naïve beliefs that perhaps these people might look past his monstrous visage and let him into their hearts if he shows them he is not the monster his face brands him. He aids the cottagers, getting firewood and clearing a snowy pathway, he even stops pilfering food from their cabinets as guilt clings to him that they might go hungry. He is what society dictates as ‘good’ in these …show more content…
In the novel, many of the characters have trouble explaining what about Mr Hyde sets them at such an unease. “I set it down to some idiosyncratic, personal distaste, and merely wondered at the acuteness of the symptoms; but I have since had reason to believe the cause to lie much deeper in the nature of man, and to turn on some nobler hinge than the principle of hatred.”(Stevenson, 5.9) Dr Lanyon hints that something visually about Hyde conjures such distaste within him. The author makes it known that compared to Dr Jekyll’s tall, robust form, Hyde is diminished and almost inhumane. This furthers the theme of dehumanization that often accompanies society’s concept of evil, just as in Frankenstein. If humankind can perceive this evil force as something outside of themselves, it makes it easier to hate, to judge, and to harm. The opposite of hideousness was also used in Frankenstein to represent an ideal and serenity that the creature could never own. He often laments these ‘beautiful’ human beings, and extolls the sound and fairness of women’s persons in contrast to his own hideous features. He even begins to equate this attractiveness to goodness, and starts to refer to himself with the same scorn that the persons that reject him heaped. Even when he requests a mate from his creator, he demands his wife be of the same physical unattractiveness as he, for only then does he feel she can