Frankenstein as myself

 March 9th 2009

There are few things that serve purpose, as there are fewer still that serve us no purpose whatsoever, but is there anything more substantial to live upon then is the particular chance of uninhibited freedom. Perhaps - this is my illusory, shall we say, 'purpose' of a lesser form.

Truly, I am baffled at the thought of just how immune my senses avail to the point, of something that is 'unclear' to the better of my knowledge. Understanding that in doing so so my vision in this sense of what future I have may be. The reality is somewhat undertaken a shallow route onward, to the best of my intentions, that my shallowness has prevented depth from.

It is from this degree my own trivial pursuit of happiness, has taken a dramatic turn, though is right on its course. . . I would suppose of it.

Being that is myself to proclimate - my own self-deception - could certainly relate to Mary Wollstonecraft's homage of Frankenstein - her main character in my adaptation (as a self-righteous monster), as it could also relate to the self-image of ones own fascination in. Frankenstein is quite a brilliant piece of literature, simply based on the premise that man is only equal to himself that he is bound by no "outer limits" that can purge upon him.

As important as this truth in Frankenstein's novice , truly brilliant as Wollstonecraft is its author, the same can be said is true of postulating how mans boundless limit of necessity can equate. In such a devious role, a monster, (as Frankenstein would have), speaks of no direct characterization. From which part does the reader think of a Modern Prometheus, acceptable, if not on terms of extreme disbelief. Are they not thinking the opposite of thereby humanly acceptable? I would say the answer to this particular question is 'yes'.

So, if Frankenstein's image of himself is in fact a monster, which is also in fact the likeness of his own image (. . .as I've argued the monster is per se) we can also deduce the human element is equally present as Wollstonecraft never commited a dual act of "the monster" representing human characteristics. Therein lay the fundamental aspect of mans vice, against the monster, as Frankenstein himself is in man. Frankenstein and 'monster' are one in the same with respect to all.

So much of my efforts go into, go as my own, virtue of what vices I have toward others. Not I myself would impose upon my vices as these are instead personal intellectual property, however, all one can do is relate to them - as I have learned though studying the metaphorical value of Frankenstein's story as told by Wollstonecraft.

I support this kind of cultural based criticism, fueled because of the relevance if one were to leave behind a trail.

I choose 'not' to live in a world of conceit, or superficial boundaries that so much of I see myself as a victim of condescending virtue, (if there ever was such), or the manipulating forces of competition in lieu of one-upmanship for no benefit to me.

In short, my conclusion is simplified tenfold, that straightforward is my thinking, when I see such exhibition of 'hipster culture' I immediately think of Frankenstein - than - embrace my inner monster. It is a tribute to Wollstonecraft, (her genius goes far ahead of her time) genius which goes underestimated in this day and age. For each and every time I see a person I know at a public place, wanting to exhibit how 'cool' they are. You know they're out there waiting. They're afraid of Frankenstein.