Is this true: Intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein wasn't the monster. Wisdom is realizing that Frankenstein actually was the monster.

Answer 1

As I'm sure you understand, this is not really a "true or false" question. If you need some help interpreting the question, I can help, though.

The question implies that "intelligence" means something like understanding facts--which is really not a good definition, but it's all we have to work with. I arrived at this definition because it's a simple fact that in the book, Frankenstein is the name of the scientist, not the monster.

The working definition of "wisdom" is evidently the ability to see something bigger and broader than plain facts. The proposal is that the scientist ought to be thought of as a "monster" because he made a creature that caused havoc.

From here, I hope your reading of this truly wonderful book will help you decide where to go with the question. To me, the book focuses much more on the inner workings of the monster than it does on whether Frankenstein was a "good guy" or a "bad guy."

Best wishes!

Answer 2

On the surface, I would say that your statement is sound. From the generally accepted cultural definitions of intelligence and wisdom being, respectively, the ability to "know" facts and understand ideas; and the experience to anecdotally understand how the world works and apply that to future decisions; I think generally one could argue that though people call Frankenstein's creation a monster, he has a kind disposition, child-like, his personality would not be call monstrous, even after his altercation with the child. Frankenstein, on the other hand, does act monstrously for the era. He lets his work consume him and supersede common decency for respect of the dead. He objectifies his "child" and traumatizes him by killing his wife. Then he wanders the earth blood thirsty, obsessed with killing "the monster". These are monstrous acts.

But I find the truly horrifying element of the novel, the humanity. Frankenstein is a scientist, and his work comes first; this sentiment has afforded humanity so many profound discoveries and inventions. Would we say that all the lives used and abused for those experiments was monstrous? Frankenstein himself did not have much emotional intelligence (stemming from his own rocky relationship with his father) and doesn't have the capability to look past the monsters exterior and find the heart and soul inside. Does this fault make him monstrous, or tragic?

Humans are social creatures, but our social dynamics are complex, fragile, and trans-generational. That any human being, pushed to the boundaries of their psychological needs and safety zones, could turn narcissistic, obsessive, and maliciously vengeful is the truly monstrous element discussed in the novel.

Answer 3

Hi there!

I agree with the previous answer that it's hard to define this question as "true or false" since there are lots of ways to interpret it, but breaking it down a little bit might help.

It seems like this statement is drawing on the reader's knowledge of the difference between "intelligence" and "wisdom", and also their knowledge of the deeper meaning of Frankenstein, beyond simple plot points. So, first, I would encourage you to think about the definitions of those terms. What's the key difference? This statement seems to differentiate between the two in the way that intelligence is kind of surface-level, and wisdom is deeper and more thoughtful.

Now, if we're thinking about wisdom and intelligence in those terms, intelligence (a surface-level knowledge) would tell us that Frankenstein is the scientist, not the monster. That aspect of the statement would be true, because all you need to know that is a basic understanding of the characters in the novel. Wisdom (a deeper, more thoughtful knowledge), might tell us that the real "monster" is not the monster itself, but the scientist who created it. That aspect of the statement would also be true, because, if that's the way you want to interpret the book, a deeper level of knowledge and critical thinking beyond the simple plot points of the novel would reveal that Frankenstein was the one who brought the monster into the world, created life that he immediately regretted and continued to neglect, committed an unethical and immoral act, and therefore was the monster.

I've found that there are lots of ways to interpret Frankenstein, though, which is why it's such an amazing book. There's so much to unpack, since Shelley included many themes and dilemmas that are extremely relevant to our society, even today. Hope this helps!

Maddy