Latest / HEEL HAVOC / Frankenstein's Monster : Monster or Victim?
Transcript
- Gator: Imagine being born into a world where nobody wants you. Everybody is afraid of you, and the person who created you takes one look at you and runs away. You don't even get a childhood. You don't even get a name. You don't get a chance. You're just called a monster. So here is the question. If everyone treats you like a monster, How long before you start believing them? Welcome to Heel Havoc. As promised, got tons of things. And yes, we are starting out with one of the most famous horror monsters in history. Yes, if you didn't catch it by the candid riddle of opening I had there, then it is Frankenstein's monster. Okay. So today we're putting Frankenstein Monster on the Chaos trial. Yes, we are, but before we decide whether he is guilty of being a monster and a true villain, maybe we should put his creator in the Chaos Courtroom first. Yes, let's talk about Victor von Frankenstein, because that is the guy that really started it all. And this is one of the biggest misconceptions of. That is in Frankenstein's monster. Frankenstein is the creator, not the monster. So Frankenstein is the monster. Everybody assumes that Frankenstein is a monster's name, but no, he was never given a name. As said in there, he was just monster, terrifying, scream, all the good stuff. But he was never given a proper name because Victor took one look at him. And ran, wondering, what have I done? Instead of pat on the back, I have done what they said couldn't be done. No, he got scared of his own creation. So Victor Frankenstein is a scientist who creates life from nothing. Gets a bunch of dead parts from graveyards, some from where people have died and he pays people for certain things. I was like, yes, he gathers the materials, I guess you can call it, from everywhere he can find it. From graveyards to freshly to freshly murdered people to people with no family, no nothing. So they just sell the body for parts. That is where he's getting every bit of this. Now the creature is being Victor brings into the is the being that Victor brings into the world. Essentially Victor is trying to play God. He wants to create life where there is none from scratch, like it can, like only God has done. And mothers, shout out to the mothers out there for that one. But think about what this means. Victor creates a living being, but never gives him the most basic gift of identity. This creature doesn't even know who he is, what he is. He just knows he That is it. Doesn't give him a name, doesn't give him guidance, nothing. He basically breathes life into him or electrifies. and then by see you later. I'm out, gone. Man, he doesn't even raise him. He doesn't even teach him how to live in the world. He doesn't help him understand the world. He abandons him. So in this case, I mean, you have a creator who literally decides, I don't like this creation, I shouldn't have done it. So I'm not gonna destroy it. I'm just going to flat out sweep it under the rug, pretend like it never happened, and do away with it. I'm done with it. Bye-bye. Hides it, chains it in the most recent Frankenstein movie. But how could you not? So, I mean, the real question: who is more monstrous? The being that struggles to survive in a world that hates him? Or the man who creates life and immediately rejects his responsibility for it? I know which way I vote on that one. Victor Frankenstein was a complete ass. I mean, could have at least taught him how to live, how to gather, how to eat. He didn't know what the if his creation, if his creature would even need to eat. He didn't know anything about it, didn't take time to study or even get the basic necessities. He just whisked him along like it never happened. So that being said, we have put Frankenstein's creator or Frankenstein on trial. And I'll get to him in a little bit. But let's talk about the creature who never asked to be born. Frankenstein's monster wasn't born a monster. He was born in a world where the first person who saw him ran away. Imagine being rejected before you even understand what rejection means. We call him a monster, but who gave him that name and why? Because the creature didn't choose his appearance, he is a multiple people. Even in the comedy with Hotel Transylvania, they joke about hey, this is my cut third cousin on my arm's left arm side, because he is literally that multiple people put to it together in pieces. So his appearance is monstrosity, it's monstrous. So his creator. Or the like basically he didn't choose his appearance, his creator, or the circumstances of his existence. He awakens in a world he doesn't understand with no family, no friends, and no one to guide him. And Victor sees his creation and is horrified as we discussed. So he wants nothing on it. Isn't like the one ugly puppy that turns out to be the one you love the most. That's pretty much what it was. Only no love at all. So instead of thinking, I've brought a living being into the world. What does he need? Victor thinks, essentially, God, what have I done? And leaves him to figure everything out. It's one of the most important failures in the story. Because as I was talking earlier, he doesn't know anything. If his stomach is hurting, he's not gonna know why. He's not gonna know if he needs to eat, he's not gonna know anything. He is essentially a newborn baby in an adult body. So the creature is physically different, but initially, he isn't simply born evil. No Person is born evil. You're made evil over time and search and circumstance. So, and he even shows later on he has the capacity to learn, to feel affection, and to understand morality. So he understands every bit of this over time. That has been one of the things, and no matter where it's Mar Mary Shelley, original book, the movies that have been made, Frankenstein is Frankenstein's monster is not just thrown out, he's thrown out there, but. He learns to love. He teaches himself to read through the enjoyment of finding people that he that don't know he's there, that just think he's a spirit in the woods. But he learns all this stuff on his own with no guidance whatsoever. So and he actually becomes smart, learns to read and everything. So is he is he really evil at this point? No. He's just a kid learning. But he wants connection and acceptance. Acceptance being the big thing because all he has ever known is rejection. Either they're scared, terrified, no matter who sees him, get away. But his creator refuses to take responsibility for him. So Victor wanted to prove that he could create life. He never stopped to consider whether he was prepared to care for it. It's like a parent buying a puppy for a four-year-old. Yes, the four-year-old wants the puppy, but is there any way that that parent that four-year-old is going to take care of that puppy? No, it's going to fall on the parent's shoulders. And this was, and that's the most. Complete analogy I can make on this. I mean, does it sound familiar? People, plenty of people want the credit for creating something, but not everybody wants the responsibility that comes afterward. Yes, you can have and essentially that means you can any fool can make a child, but a real parent knows how to raise one. I know I probably stepped on some toes and made a few people upset. Well, tough shit. It is what it is. But let's get on to the compassionate parts. Because the preacher cur the creature can proves he can be compassionate. He studies, he learns from the family that he's just watching. I mean, this is one of the strong strongest arguments in the creature's defense. And it comes from the time observing the DeLacy family in Mary Shelley's novel. I mean, he secretly watches them. He learns their language. Now, how tough is that to learn a language with no instruction whatsoever? I mean, he's just looking through windows and kind of guiding and watching what they're doing and repeating it. And develops an understanding of human relationships. As he sees father to child to mother to child to grandfather, he is seeing the hierarchy and he's seeing how they treat each other. I mean, he even Learns about generosity, hardship, love, and family. I mean, he even goes as far to help the family in secret by gathering firewood, making sure that they stayed alive. And there's no need to do that. They don't even know he's there. They don't even know he exists. I mean, so let that sink in. I mean, before he becomes a killer, he tries to be helpful without expecting anything. Anything in return. He doesn't begin his life with a fully formed desire for revenge. He learns about humanity by watching human beings. It is no different from a scientist observing the outside and then being able to report, mimic, even sometimes, the beings themselves. So what does he discover? People can be kind. People can be generous, and people can love each other. So he begins hoping they might accept him too. When he finally approaches the blind father, he initially receives a sympathetic hearing because the father cannot judge him by his appearance. So the Father only had his what he was, said and did to judge him by. And he accepted him. But when the other family members return and see him, they react with fear and violence. His hope of acceptance collapses. Think about that. You have been watching all the love that you know this family is capable of because they show it to each other. And then you just grasp and want to want a little taste of what it's like. And you're getting it. And it is ripped from your grasp. Your acceptance is gone. So how much of the creature's later hatred comes from his own nature and how much comes from repeated rejection? So let's get down to the trial portion of this, shall we? Yes, let's put it on. This is the chaos courtroom, and this is where you put the character on trial without excusing everything he does. So in defense, he was failed by humanity. His creator abandons it. Strangers attack him because of his appearance. He is denied friendship and companionship. He learns about love, but is denied the opportunity to experience it. His anger develops after he repeatedly experiences cruelty and rejection. So the defense argues that his violence history he was not simply born with desire to hurt people. But here comes the prosecution. Suffering doesn't justify murder. He deliberately kills innocent people. He seeks revenge against Victor by hurting those Victor's loves. He understands that his actions cause suffering because he knows and understands suffering as well as love. And he eventually chooses cruelty as a way to punish the world. So the prosecution argues that being victimized explains his choices, but it doesn't make those choices morally acceptable. The key distinction understanding a villain isn't the same as declaring him innocent. The creature, in this case, can be both a victim of terrible treatment and responsible for terrible things he does. But that's what makes the story tragic rather than simple. Court rests and I want to see what y'all think about my analogies on where you would lie. Is it the monster's fault? Or is it humanity and how much it created the monster? And that be the case, who is doing the killing? The gun or the one pulling the trigger? So, as we discussed earlier, his creator, Victor Frankenstein, is he the real villain? He wanted to play God, but didn't want to be a father. He worked to create life, succeeded, saw what he had made, and ran away. The real horror isn't just that he brought a creature into the world, it's that he refused to take responsibility for it. Victor is so obsessed with achieving something extraordinary, something nobody has done and except for God, and nobody and I mean everybody says can't be done. And he because of this, he ignores the moral responsibilities attached to his achievement. He wants to defeat death. He wants to prove himself capable of creating life. But once he succeeds, he refuses to care for what he has created. He cared more about the accomplishment of doing more than the understanding of why or what comes after. So consider the parallels. It's ambition without responsibility. Victor focuses on whether he can create life. Not whether he should or how he will care for it. An appearance over character. He judges his creation immediately before learning anything about him. He is scared about the appearance overall. That says enough. Why would he not? I mean, e he could have put the creature out of his misery from the get-go, not run away, but he understood how scary and terrifying he was. But let's just release him. and the w wild. Now there's also cowardice. Instead of accepting responsibility, Victor runs away. Now we come to revenge. Victor and the creature become locked in a cycle of escalating retaliation. I mean, Victor isn't responsible for every decision the creature makes, but he bears enormous responsibility for abandoning him and allowing the relationship to deteriorate. So the heel havoc question: if you create a life and then abandon it because you don't like what it looks like. Who is the real monster? Let me know in the comments. So, what this is an interesting take, and I know a lot of y'all are gonna be out there being like, that is ridiculous. It sounds stupid, but let's say it anyways. The creature is a mirror held up to humanity. Who did anybody else just get goosebumps? Ha ha. The creature's tragedy is that he wants to be treated as a person, and essentially that he is. He is blood, bone, brain, matter. He is a person. But he is treated as a monster because of appearance, not his actions at first. So society refuses to see past anything but his appearance. He could be the smartest man or the most kindest, as he did show kindness. But nobody would care because of how he looks. And I know there's a lot of people out there that feel that same way. And I mean, he learns humanity's language and values. He witnesses kindness. He longs for companionship, showing that he also understands what it's like to be lonely. But the people who preach compassion often deny it to him. That contradiction is the heart of Shelley's story. Think about that. How many times in this world have you not paid attention or looked the other way just because of someone how someone appeared or looked, or maybe was just dressed, or maybe they had a haircut that made them look a little auspicious and dangerous. Maybe they had earrings, maybe they had several piercings, maybe they had tattoos and my god, how scary is it with tattoos? This was a direct reflection. of humanity in my opinion. It was a mirror, perfect analogy. So The creature becomes a reflection of the world that rejects him, and his rage exposes the cruelty, prejudice, and selflessness that humans would rather pretend don't exist. I'm not going to oversimplify the point, but Shelly isn't saying every rejected person will become violent or that suffering excuses violence. I believe what she's asking what moral obligations creators and societies have toward vulnerable beings, and what happens when those obligations are ignored. It's a powerful book if you bel beyond the horror and the murder and look at the underlining story. It is a very misjudged book. But let's talk about some modern connections to this. Like I said, people are judged by their appearance before anyone ever knows their character. Let's hammer this in. Bullying. I hate bullies by the way. And social isolation. How many people get bullied, even cyberbullied on that fact, and even when out in public are ignored or looked at like they are a a cancer that they can't wait to cut out? Children or ver or vulnerable people abandoned by those responsible for them. Imagine being a child and being abandoned or losing both of your parents and something like that. And now you have to make it through this world with no knowledge of how you are how this world is except how you are treated. Now imagine that child being treated horribly, abused, beaten, belittled. What do you expect that child to become? Think about scientific progress that outpaces ethical responsibility. I'm gonna leave that up for debate because there's a lot of things out there, especially like cloning a goat. Cloning is now a thing. Now, think about that. They are essentially doing the same thing, they are creating life from nothing. Now, also, the last point I'll hammer on this is the danger of defining someone by their worst act. Rather than understanding how they got there. There is always multiple sides to every single story, and I'm a firm believer in if you hear two different stories, then the truth is somewhere between them. If you hear five different stories, each piece holds a piece of the truth. It's just up to you and your responsibility to figure out the truth before you make an assumption. So we know the creature is physic is fictional, but the questions he raises are painfully human. So let's talk about the novel versus the movies. Now, there have been several movies about Frankenstein. there has been the original, 1931, the Frankenstein. and up to recently, even Netflix put out a an adaption of the Frankenstein Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. There's also the Robert De Niro, which I think was one of the better ones because, you know, come on. Love him or hate him, agree or disagree with his political views, the man is a wonderful actor, and I will give him credit where credit is due. Now, Mary Shelv Shelley's novel came out in 1818. Think about that. We are looking at 208 years of this move of this book being out there, and they're still making movies about it, multiple ones. Man, so That is a powerful book if it's hung around that long. I mean, you know, the Bible's got it, Pete, but there ain't many outside of that, especially in fiction. So let's change how you will see the creature. The creature, as you know, in the novel, is articulate, intelligent, and capable of explaining his suffering. And his inner life is central to the story. The nineteen thirty one film, Frankenstein, the creature, is portrayed more as frightening, tragic figure whose experiences and treatment contribute to the audience's sympathy. Now later adaptations, like I said, Robert De Niro's version, Hotel Transylvania is just a comical version, even the new modern one on Netflix, I liked that one. That shows how he was suffered or abandoned and just chained up like he was a beast from the get-go. He that's all he knew. So some of the other later adaptations emphasize his innocence and humanity, and some focus more on his violence, rage, or terrifying physical power. I Frankenstein was another good one, doesn't get enough credit. I mean, it is what it is. I I actually liked it. It was more of what happens if John Wick meets Frankenstein type, but it was worth the watch. I I'm not upset that I watched it, not upset that I own it. I might watch it this weekend, as a matter of fact. So, of all the different versions of Frankenstein, everyone is different because I believe everyone sees this story and they feel something different. They see something different and they want to get that difference out. So I don't think Any Frankenstein will ever be the same because every one of them will look at this creature and see something different. But if we also make sure to understand the original creature versus the movie, the personalities, actions, and backstories vary significantly, like I said, in the original novel, which you should read. One day I might as well. And like he was more articulate. Now, granted, I did read a bit of it. I ain't gonna lie. I was like, I need to finish it though. But he was more articulate and not full of rage or anything like that. So let's ask some questions. Was Frankenstein's creature born evil? Or did the world help make him that way? I'm gonna say the world made him that way. Here's here's why. Because he all he knows is whenever he goes up to a human, he is gonna get stuff thrown at him. They're gonna try to kill him or they're gonna try to hurt him. That's all he knows. So why wouldn't he treat violence with violence? That's more self-defense in my eyes. Now, second, should Victor Frankenstein be held responsible for abandoning his creation? Absolutely, it all starts there. If that never happens, maybe we do not have the same creature, the same lives lost, and the same ending. Third, if the creature had been accepted by the Lacey family, could his life have turned out differently? Absolutely. That is one of the biggest, I think that is what the straw that broke the camel's back in this case, because he knows what a family is capable of and still gets rejected, even though he helped without any reason to, without any need or want from them. He still helped as like and was still rejected, all because of his appearance. But fourth, does being rejected explain his murders, or does it simply make them more understandable? That's a tough one in my eyes. I'd love to hear y'all's thoughts on that, but I'm gonna say it makes them more understandable because he is literally doing what he thinks this world is. I mean, he doesn't know any different. You see something you don't like, kill it. Run it off, beat it. That's what he knows. So what happens when he doesn't like something? So on fifth, is physical appearance still one of the strongest ways people judge others? Absolutely. Ten out of ten, yes, people will judge you no matter what you kind of a person you are based on simple fact of how you look. And I guarantee that 100% of the time. Otherwise, let's take it like okay, let's look at it like this. Ted Bundy you know, killed Dozens of women? But everybody believed him when he said he was innocent, except for the people that were actually putting him on trial, because of how he looked. He looked like an innocent guy. But they were more willing to let that monster in just because of the way his appearance was. So I think physical appearance is the one of the strongest ways. So who is more str responsible for the tragedy? Victor? The creature or society that rejects him? Now that's a good question. I would love to get y'all's take back on that. If Victor had created a beautiful being, like perfection, no scars, no discoloration, no nothing, would he have been treated differently? That's another question that might take. I mean, I'm sure both sides. I mean, how could you call him a monster if he's beautiful? Now, if he was beautiful and just gorgeous on the sun total, he wouldn't have been rejected. He would have been welcomed in. And that would have given him a different understanding. Maybe not created the murder, maybe not have become a monster at all. Seventh, if Victor had created a beautiful being sorry, eighth, if can someone be both a victim and a villain? My take on that is simple, yes. But which one are you more of? And which one of you were you first? That those two questions. Be kinda the the big ones. So the verdict we have heard the prosecution. We have heard the defense. Now the verdict is in. And in heel havoc, Frankenstein's monster is guilty of terrible acts, but not born guilty. I will not call him a monster. I say he's a product of everything that went around him. But being a victim doesn't make you innocent. The creature was abandoned, feared, and rejected, and that deserves our sympathy. But he also chose to hurt innocent people. We can understand why a villain became a villain without pretending his victims don't matter. The creature deserves our sympathy because he was denied love, guidance, companionship. I mean, Victor deserves condemnation for creating life and abandoning his responsibilities. And the people who judge the creature solely by his appearance reveal something ugly about themselves. But the creature's suffering doesn't erase the suffering he inflicts on others. And that's the tragedy. He Desperately wants the world to recognize his humanity, yet eventually commits acts that make it harder for anyone to do so. In closing, maybe Frankenstein's monster was never the monster we thought he was. Maybe he was a lonely being who wanted one thing most of us take for granted to be seen, to be accepted, and to be loved. But pain can explain anger without excusing cruelty. Victor Frankenstein created a life and abandoned it. Society saw a face it feared and refused to look any deeper, and a creature in turn allowed his suffering to become his suffering of others. So who's the real monster? The man who created life and ran away, the world that judged before it understood, or the creature who let rejection turn into revenge. Maybe the most frightening thing about Frankenstein isn't the creature's face. It's how easily human beings can decide someone isn't worthy of compassion. This is Hill Havoc, and every villain has a story, and sometimes the monster is the only one nobody bothered to understand. Thank you for tuning in this week. And like I promised, I have more in store. I got some horde of cum. I got witches, goblins, Dracula. my. Yes, we are dedicating this Halloween favorite month to all the favorite monsters. Maybe a couple new ones. So tune in next time. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and follow because you might not see me again if you don't. And don't miss out on it. Cause on this podcast, it's good to be bad.