In Chapter 4 of Volume II, Mary Shelley uses Harold to show her disdain for those who are never satisfied.
Harold, in observing the cottagers, states, "I saw no cause for thier unhappiness; but I was deeply affected by it... Yet why were these gentle beings unhappy? They possessed a delightful house (for such it was in my eyes), and every luxury; they had a fire to warm them when chill, and delicious viands when hungry; they were dressed in excellent clothes; and, still more, they enjoyed one another's company and speech, interchanging each day looks of affection and kindness."
To Harold (who has never had a warm home, food to eat, or affection), the cottagers' lot in life is wonderful. However, they are unhappy anyway. Shelley is making the statement that man is not happy without frivolty. Furthermore, Shelley is also saying that to be a human implies an unquenchable thirst.
Thoughts? Agree/Disagree?
6 comments:
I disagree. Shelley is simply contrasting the situations between the monster and the family. The family realizes they are not as bad off as others or they would not help those in need as they do.I do not think that Shelley is in any way implying that humans have an unquenchable thirst, more like they are never quite content.
hmm..i think you have a good point there ali. but didn't the cottagers come from a very noble background? they were so unhappy because they had lost everything and they didn't know if the Arabian woman would ever find them. they had such an uncertain future, how could they not get down?
don't get me wrong, i totally agree with you on the fact that Shelley isn't too fond of those who are never happy, but I don't think that this is where she shows her true feelings. Victor and Walton are two very good examples of people never being happy with what they have.
I agree. Harold, in all his hideous splendor, feels seriously cheated by his lot in life.
Where does the cycle end though? Even the richest person in the world wants for something. And "rich" is a term applied very loosely. It can be a plethora of different things, not just money.
Do you think if Victor hadn't shunned Harold from the very moment of his living existence he would be content? He seems to think so--but I highly doubt it. I think there would still be the unending bitterness of being shunned by men...and other needs or wants to keep him unsatisfyed.
i agree. just like with the power argument, humans always seem to want more. we just cant sit back and be happy with what we have. we have to have more. it has to be the best, most expensive, highest quality thing out there before we are happy. to humans, as a society, money is happiness. as long as we have the best then we are semi happy....well just as long as we dont know that someone else has something better than us.
as a race we are greedy and self-centered. we always want more.....
There is definately truth in this passage.
I think it mostly relates to the "grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." thing.
We always want what we don't have.
I think Shelley was trying to show the moster's humanity here by having him sypathize with the unhappy family. The moster really did not have any reason to feel bad or sorry for the family but he did anyway, showing that he was not really that much of a monster after all. I think that is was to show something about the moster and not the family or the human nature.
Post a Comment