Is Frankenstein's Monster Undead?

[RJ 17]

Just a random conversation me and a buddy got into today. The question is simple, just as the topic says: Is Frankenstein's Monster Undead? On one side of the argument you get the fact that it's a being made from stitched together corpses - that is, dead bodies - and reanimated. Sounds like a fancy zombie and zombies count as the undead. On the other hand, there's the fact that the entire point of the story was to illustrate the folly of man's hubris in trying to play god by creating life. The Monster isn't just some walking corpse stumbling around, it seeks knowledge the way a child does. It learns, it talks, it thinks, and to quote the famous line "IT'S ALIVE!!!!"

To that my buddy said "Vampires talk, think, and learn and they're still undead."

So what say you, my fellow Escapists? Does Frankenstein's Monster count amongst the ranks of the living or is it one of the undead?

Captcha: "Lollerskates"
................
What the fuck is a "lollerskate"?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Interesting. He's built from body parts of deceased people... yet as a whole he was never alive to begin with.

(ruminates)

As Victor put it, "It's Alive!", not "It's Undead!".
Bits and pieces that were once lifeless on their own produce life.
It becomes a question of at what point do body and individuality separate. Are you undead for replacing a limb with a cadaver's? Suppose you replace all limbs? Now replace every bit of your body but your mind (like RoboCop while we're on the subject). So I vote alive. A living person made of undead bits if you will.

 

[Jamash]

I had this thought many years ago and concluded that if I was going to liken Frankenstein's Monster to a creature from the Fighting Fantasy bestiary, then it is a Flesh Golem, rather than a zombie or other undead creature.

Being a Golem, Frankenstein's Monster would be classified as a Magical Creature rather than Undead, although the traditional Fantasy setting and rules might not apply.

Irrespective of it's reanimated body tissue, it's mind isn't really afflicted like a traditional undead brain (did complete brain death ever occur?), so I wouldn't say it was undead but an transposed human in an avatar.

If the brain was put into a mechanical body, you wouldn't call it a Robot or an Automaton, but recognise as a Cyborg or Trans-Human, so by the same virtue you can't call it an undead creature.

Depending on your point of view, you could argue that Frankenstein's Monster has more in common with Robocop than a zombie, with the only difference being materials.

Part of the answer may depend on what you believe happened to it's brain, mind and soul. Was it the same brain, mind and soul that it was previously, a brain that hadn't experienced complete brain death and was just revived in another vessel, or had the brain suffered complete brain death, was completely blank and then revived, but without a soul or identity and was just biological computer with no identity or memory that began to learn as it grew?

 

[BeeGeenie]

Now this is an interesting debate.

The monster awakes with no memory of it's previous life, and must learn most of it's higher thought processes, ie. speech, reading, etc. This suggests that he is a new "being," not an old one brought back to life, although you could also argue that his loss of those abilities and need to re-learn them was a result of damage incurred by brain death.

The monster seems to believe that he is an entirely new "soul," rather than a revived one. So he would probably not define himself as un-dead. As far as he is concerned, he was "born" to Frankenstein.

Also, at the time the book was written, modern Zombies were not a thing, so I think it's safe to say that Mary Shelley considered him to be alive.

 

[Altorin]

considering we're discussing a fictional thing, there probably is no right answer, but I'm going to say... sorta. It really depends on the definition of undead you're using. I think the general idea for an undead is someone who was dead, but through some mechanism has been revived in a non-living state. I think the idea is that the biological functions we attribute to living things (requiring food/air, excreting waste, circulation, aging) cease entirely, and a new function overrides the inert dead state.

So the question then becomes - does the frankenstein monster shit? does he age? if he doesn't eat or breathe, does he die again? was it just a mysterious scientific process that rejuvenated him?

if the answer is no, but he's still animate and walking around, he's undead. If the answer is yes, then I'm afraid he's undead.

 

[stroopwafel]

Monster of Frankenstein is ''alive'' b/c it's a self-conscious entity with emotions. A vampire would not be alive but rather 'undead' b/c a vampire lost its human essence(feeling and emotion) to bloodthirst. In a way they are merely corpses reanimated by a curse similarly as a zombie.

Humans(and every other animal) are basically the product of nature computing with meat, but it is the 'soul'(our self-conscious and emotions) that makes us alive. It doesn't really matter how our (corporeal) vessel came to be, as long as we are aware of our own existence. That is what defines us. So far only humans possess that trait but if ever a machine got to emulate the communicating nerve cells in our brains and received self-awareness(and with it the ability to 'feel' and reflect) than that theoretical machine/robot would be alive as well.

What if for example our brain activity could be 'downloaded' into a synthetic body and with our consiousness carried over and our flesh dead and buried would will still be human? I think so b/c what defines us as human(our essence so to say) remains intact. Frankenstein's monster is simply the revived essence of a human being. Albeit in a nasty shell.

 

[RJ 17]

A vampire would not be alive but rather 'undead' b/c a vampire lost its human essence(feeling and emotion) to bloodthirst.

Ahhh but look at one of the most classic examples of the vampire, Bram Stoker's Dracula. He was an emotional being.

Frankenstein's monster is simply the revived essence of a human being. Albeit in a nasty shell.

That's the thing though, The Monster never really had a body of its own, it was sewn together from various other corpses. Does Frankenstein create a soul/essence and inject that into the monster? No, he simply uses science and chemistry to animate a body made from various other bodies.

Vampires and other non-mindless forms of the undead are certainly self-aware and know fully what they are and what their existence is all about.

For the record, I'm on the "it's alive" side of this argument, I'm just playing devil's advocate against the points that you've raised.

considering we're discussing a fictional thing, there probably is no right answer

That's why I was hoping this would make for a fun discussion. :3

Now this is an interesting debate.

The monster awakes with no memory of it's previous life, and must learn most of it's higher thought processes, ie. speech, reading, etc. This suggests that he is a new "being," not an old one brought back to life,

But the parts that The Monster is made of are old bits and pieces from other dead bodies, it never had a body of its own to begin with.

The monster seems to believe that he is an entirely new "soul," rather than a revived one. So he would probably not define himself as un-dead. As far as he is concerned, he was "born" to Frankenstein.

Also, at the time the book was written, modern Zombies were not a thing, so I think it's safe to say that Mary Shelley considered him to be alive.

True and true, however the fact remains that since The Monster was never alive to begin with (before existing as The Monster), then it never had a soul of it's own. Does it create its own soul? If so, how? By learning, speaking, and thinking? We then run into the vampire argument and most people tend to think of vampires as being soulless, like most other undead. The Monster little more than a walking masterpiece of scientific achievement, simply all the physical and chemical requirements needed for a body to function. Frankenstein could accomplish that, but he couldn't create a soul.

Being a Golem, Frankenstein's Monster would be classified as a Magical Creature rather than Undead, although the traditional Fantasy setting and rules might not apply.

Ahhhh but golems are more or less mindless, bound to the mage or magic that animated them. Destroy the source of magic and you can effectively stop the golem, returning it to the unanimated components that it's made of (in this case it would be the bits and pieces of dead bodies). The Monster, on the other hand, is free thinking. It learns, talks, has free will, etc.

Part of the answer may depend on what you believe happened to it's brain, mind and soul. Was it the same brain, mind and soul that it was previously, a brain that hadn't experienced complete brain death and was just revived in another vessel, or had the brain suffered complete brain death, was completely blank and then revived, but without a soul or identity and was just biological computer with no identity or memory that began to learn as it grew?

I'd say the latter, all things considered. I'm pretty sure that everything that makes up The Monster's body is completely dead, and as far as The Monster is concerned, its entire existence started when it woke up on Frankenstein's slab. Unlike Robocop who struggles with regaining the memory of his past life, no such memory exists to be regained for The Monster. For all intents and purposes, it is an entirely new entity, having to learn everything from scratch.

Again, to all of the above: I'm just playing devil's advocate here since "It's Alive!" seems to be winning out. Personally I'm glad it's that way because when I had this discussion with my friend, that's what I was arguing. But he still came up with some good counterpoints to the points I was raising. That's why I thought it'd be fun to bring this debate to the forum. :3

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Captcha: "Lollerskates"
................
What the fuck is a "lollerskate"?

Lollerskates.

OT: Even though I feel he does fall under some of the requirements for the undead, because he was technically revived, out of many people, I'd say he falls under his own niche category of monster.

 

[Little Woodsman]

Well in the original story it never actually states that the monster is made up of corpse parts. The implication is taken because in Victor Frankenstein's journal it states that he "visited charnel houses" in preparation for the creation process. However, if it had not been previously put to me that this was to acquire building materials I would have thought that Victor's visits to such places were for research and observation... after all the whole *point* of making the creature was to replicate the process by which humans come to be in order to advance medical treatment. In short, Victor thought "If I can *make* a person I should be able to *fix* a person." (Victor, btw, was not a Doctor, but a University student.)

I suppose the actual answer to your question depends on your definition of "undead". If by "undead" you mean a soulless, conscience-less reanimated corpse, well...

The creature was both saintly in conscience and an intellectual genius (applying scientific method to the gathering/preparation of foodstuffs mere hours after being animated, and going from having only the basic idea that creatures could communicate with each other by sounds to speaking French with perfect fluency in a matter of months by observing someone being taught through a tiny hole in a wall.) At one point the creature takes a loaf of bread from the windowsill of a farmhouse, and when it later realizes that it had deprived the family living in the home of food it resolves to sustain itself entirely by foraging for nuts and berries in the forest while doing almost all of the farm work at night while the family slept. The creature only became malicious after repeated, unrelenting abuse by humans, and even then eventually felt a measure of remorse for it's most malicious actions.

I'd recommend reading the original story--it only took me a couple of hours to read, and I picked up my copy, new for $1 in the bargain bins of a department store. But it is depressing as all heck.

 

[stroopwafel]

Ahhh but look at one of the most classic examples of the vampire, Bram Stoker's Dracula. He was an emotional being.

Indeed, but say a person died, lost all free will and succumbed to bloodthirst. Is it than still 'alive' or merely trapped, bound to a re-animated corpse it has no control over? Every vampire needs to 'drink' so to say and in doing so lost all manner of free will. You could say a vampire contradicts the very thing that makes us alive by making the host malicious against its own free will while maintaining self-awareness. That's ofcourse why they are often portrayed as so tragically sentimental.

That's the thing though, The Monster never really had a body of its own, it was sewn together from various other corpses. Does Frankenstein create a soul/essence and inject that into the monster? No, he simply uses science and chemistry to animate a body made from various other bodies.

But doesn't that count for every person? Every person is born from the materials of two other people, only in a natural process of melting genes and slow growth instead of sudden revival through stitched together human parts. Parents don't 'create' a person they simply give it life, similairly as Frankenstein did though obviously in an entirely different fashion. In the end the monster was self-aware, had its own identity and possessed the whole range of emotions like every other human.

Vampires and other non-mindless forms of the undead are certainly self-aware and know fully what they are and what their existence is all about.

Indeed, but ofcourse there is a difference betwen the human definition of 'alive'(self-awareness, free will, emotions) and an aware consciousness that possesses no human traits. For example is a demon alive? Technically it is but not by human definition.

 

[lechat]

"Perhaps a corpse would be re-animated."
Mary Shelley


I doubt souls have anything to do with it because (assumption) mary shelley would have thought only humans have souls and not any other living creature, but the fact is dead things have no soul (sorry angel and spike) and live things may or may not have a soul so just because the monster has no soul doesn't make him undead.

my whole reasoning for why the monster is alive however is based on the fact that the period in which it was written electricity and magnetism had nearly magical qualities to them and it's exactly the sorta shit legitimate doctors and scientist where trying to pull off.

 

[lechat]

edit:

wrong thread

 

[mistahzig1]

I would say he's alive, but soulless. And as the story goes along, he "gains" one?

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Flesh Golem might be accurate, except it shows clear signs of intelligence. I would call it "Intelligent Undead", like a Lich. It demonstrates a fear of fire, something a normal zombie or ghoul wouldn't even register. Since Lichs are vulnerable to Turn Undead spells (albeit they are much harder to turn), so would the Monster.

 

[Saltyk]

I'd consider him undead. He fits in with the more modern definition of the undead. Vampires, long considered undead, are very similar in most respects. And we've even had a few examples of zombies that could speak, think, and feel in movies. Comedies, but still. So, I'm thinking Frankenstein's Monster is undead.

Admittedly, one could argue he is alive, as well.

when i had mine removed i thought i was a wizard


in all seriousness i'm rocking the classic caveman jaw so i never had to have em removed. every few months one might get infected but usually the just sit there half way out and don't bother me.

Me thinks this was supposed to go into the Wisdom Teeth stories thread. Just speculation.

 

[Nosferatu2]

Dose it change the story at all to think it's one over the other? No? Then why dose' it matter?

And anyway it depends on how you define the words.

 

[Ubiquitous Duck]

Well shouldn't something that is undead mean that: it was once alive, became dead for whatever reason and is now alive for whatever reason - some sort of loose working definition.

In that sense, if we consider the root of a person to be their brain, then we could consider Frakenstein's monster to be the undead version of whatever brain he has. The construction of a new body just allows this brain to function some sort of body. The fact they used to be body parts of different people doesn't really matter, they equally could've been made to look like human parts or made of any other material. In this case, his brain was once animate, become inanimate and has subsequently been brought back to being animate. Pretty sure that would count as being undead. I wouldn't say undead means that brain function (like a zombie) must be severely hindered on return, as the example your friend gave of a vampire - some undead do have the higher brain function.

If he doesn't have a brain, or it is purely aesthetic, then surely he is more of a scientific invention. More like a robot, than a person. Whether or not he is built from metal or parts of humans would be irrelevant.

I enjoyed getting my head around what my thoughts were on this. Good question. I only wish I had a good knowledge of Frankenstein, the detail in the book, to fall back on, as my understanding is very limited.

 

[Mutie]

It depends on how he was created. It is never stated in the original text how, exactly, the monster is made; simply that it was painstakingly done sinew at a time. Personally I would say no, as the general idea behind the monster is that it is "new life". A new creation. A new born as it were. Modern interpretations cast it as a hulking, stitched up corpse beast (which is cool, don't get me wrong, I love it) but that is VERY far from the truth. I think perhaps one of the most interesting re-tellings is the unanimously disregarded Splice.

 

[elvor0]

Monster of Frankenstein is ''alive'' b/c it's a self-conscious entity with emotions. A vampire would not be alive but rather 'undead' b/c a vampire lost its human essence(feeling and emotion) to bloodthirst. In a way they are merely corpses reanimated by a curse similarly as a zombie.

Humans(and every other animal) are basically the product of nature computing with meat, but it is the 'soul'(our self-conscious and emotions) that makes us alive. It doesn't really matter how our (corporeal) vessel came to be, as long as we are aware of our own existence. That is what defines us. So far only humans possess that trait but if ever a machine got to emulate the communicating nerve cells in our brains and received self-awareness(and with it the ability to 'feel' and reflect) than that theoretical machine/robot would be alive as well.

What if for example our brain activity could be 'downloaded' into a synthetic body and with our consiousness carried over and our flesh dead and buried would will still be human? I think so b/c what defines us as human(our essence so to say) remains intact. Frankenstein's monster is simply the revived essence of a human being. Albeit in a nasty shell.

I dunno, Vampires tend to be pretty humanlike, most Vampires in fiction tend to still be capable of higher thought, emotion and feeling. They drink blood because they /have/ to, in the same way a Heroin addict needs to get another hit, and generally ain't just some feral beast, but otherwise they can easily pass for human if they can control the urge to murder everything in sight and depending on the version, avoid daylight. Which they tend to do otherwise they attract angry mobs with pitchforks and torches or burst into flames. Of course there /are/ feral vampires, but that's different to the traditional one.

Reading your posts I get where you're coming from from a philisophical point of view, though to say they don't feel or have free will doesn't really fit, again in the same way a drug addict doesn't cease to be human when he's dependant on a drug. I've known junkies who were capable of keeping their lives in check as well as seen people who's lives fall apart and eventually die. While they still /need/ to drink, they are perfectly capable of all levels of thought humans are capable of otherwise. I /need/ to go to work to get money to eat, but I don't lose my free will by doing so.

Demons too have free will, self awareness, emotions etc, with the exception of the feral ones, most big league demons are pretty machiavellian fuckers. That requires a lot of free thinking traits. The human definition of "alive" is that something is breathing, metabolising etc. Being spiritually "alive" is a completely different concept.

I'd say Frankenstien was undead too. Essentially in the same way a vampire is, though through different means. Somoene suggested a Flesh Golem, which fits well too, abet it's a self aware one.

 

[stroopwafel]

I dunno, Vampires tend to be pretty humanlike, most Vampires in fiction tend to still be capable of higher thought, emotion and feeling. They drink blood because they /have/ to, in the same way a Heroin addict needs to get another hit, and generally ain't just some feral beast, but otherwise they can easily pass for human if they can control the urge to murder everything in sight and depending on the version, avoid daylight. Which they tend to do otherwise they attract angry mobs with pitchforks and torches or burst into flames. Of course there /are/ feral vampires, but that's different to the traditional one.

Yeah, vampires still possess the same traits(for better or worse) of their former self but the difference is that they are now technically 'dead' and kept alive solely by bloodthirst, withering away their free will and poisoning their very sense of self. For vampires that were once good people it is a fate worse than death. It's different from addiction b/c an addict can make a choice to quit, something a vampire will never be capable of. He/she has to purposefully kill other people in order to stay alive.

There is a fantastic trilogy of Elseworld Batman comics that explores this in depth. Batman gets bit by Dracula which turns him into a vampire and in the beginning he is able to suppress his bloodthirst(thus maintaining his humanity) but once he gives in he starts to lose this and slowly turns more into a monster driven only by hunger. In the end Batman betrayed everything he ever stood for even losing his sense of self and its only his last bit of humanity left that drives him to....well you should probably read it for yourself.

I see a vampire more as someone who was once human but is now dead while still kept alive and unable to 'move on' b/c of this curse/disease. The good ones obviously suffer from this fate which is why they are always portrayed as these tragic anti-heroes in fiction.

As for Frankenstein's monster I define 'alive' as possessing human traits such as self-awareness and emotions, rather than mere organic function(which would technically be more accurate as you pointed out). But in a way organs can be cloned so anything(conscious or not) that has blood flowing through it is technically alive. Yet the general consensus of 'alive' is possessing a conscious. And that is what Frankenstein's monster has. Not only that but it also possesses emotions implicated by the fact it feels the pain of rejection and as such is able to reflect on his own self in relation to others. So in a way he is similarly alive as someone born through natural means.

Demons are a separate category I think. Seeing they are unnatural creatures from an astral plane governed by an entirely different 'rule set' than humans.