HOW SHOULD I START MY IOP OUT FOR FRANKENSTEIN?
I'm going to research Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his beliefs along with what characterizes Romanticism.
Then, I'm going to trace how society contaminates the heart of the creature.
I'm going to trace his actions and show that the creature reacts to the cruelty of men, not simply out of an evil inherent in him.
now how should i begin my iop out??
6 Answers | Add Yours
Can you explain more fully what you mean by "IOP"? I've never heard of the term, and others may not have heard of it either. If you can tell us what those initials stand for, we may be able to give you some better help. In any case, good luck with your project.
IOP = internal oral presentation. It's a really big project for "IB" (international bacculautee classes - these classes are college courses one takes during high school).
Perhaps you could begin with a statement that the debate about what composes a personality more--nurture or nature--has led many an author to examine the nature of man. As a Romantic, Shelley feels an apprehension for the advances made in science and their ramifications. Instead, nature instills a compassion in man and provides the spiritual insights that he needs. In line with the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Shelley is convinced that the creature has been born a virtuous innocent, but has been coerced into evil acts because of the attitudes of others, beginning with his rejection by his creator, Victor.
I must agree with westwood. The question which lies underneath all else is if the creature was innately evil or if its experiences with the evils of society were responsible for the creature becoming evil. Therefore, a discussion explaining the difference between nature and nurture would be of the utmost importance and relevance.
As has been mentioned, nature vs. nurture is important in this story. The major thrust of Shelley's novel is that the creature becomes a monster because Victor and society treat him so badly. The creature repeatedly attempts to make a connection with the human race—which continually rejects him. Are we surprised by this when his own "father" rejects him so completely?
In your paper, I would point out Victor's inability to assume his parental responsibilities. Although too late he realizes that he has done something terrible by creating the creature, he never assumes his responsibility for it. He never tries to train the monster to stay out of sight; he never offers to provide for the creature. A compelling argument is who is the true monster in the story—the creature or Victor?
Had Victor, with all of his learning and knowledge, been able to see beyond the creature's appearance and his own mortification over what he has done in creating life, at least HE could have been the monster's friend, and avoided the heartache everyone in the story suffers, most of all Victor when he loses his loved ones.
My emphasis would be on the creature's gestures of kindness: saving the little girl from drowning; refusing to harm Felix when the young man beats him; and, his insistence that he wanted only what all humans want: love. Even his willlingness to leave the human race with a mate, never to be see again, proves that he is much more human in some ways, while Victor is the more monstrous of the two. In acting as he does, Victor destroys the lives of all those around him, including the creature, and even his own.
I, too, have to support the above suggestions. The one question many readers and critics of Shelley's monster have is if the monster is innately evil. Therefore, you could begin the presentation explaining what both terms (nature and nurture) mean and the differing views on the monster. After this, you can move into your own justifications.
Join to answer this question
Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.Join eNotes