Are Frankenstein's Monster and Eli the same?

[artredfield1999]

These last few days I have been reading Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, and I have been thinking about the similarities between the "creature" and Eli, and I would like to know what you guys (and girls too) think about these questions.

• Who of these two would you trust, a pretty twelve-year-old vampire that had killed several people, or a harmless but hideous "creature" that only wishes the company and love of another human being?

• Would Eli run away from Frankenstein's monster or she would understand the misery that he (the monster) has to endure and make friends with this creation of the man?

[ltroifanatic]

This last few days I been reading Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, and I been thinking about the similarities between the "creature" and Eli, and I would like to know what you guys (and girls too) think about this questions.
1. Who of this two would you trust, a pretty twelve year old vampire that had killed several people, or a harmless but ugly "creature" that only wishes the company and love of another human being?
2. Would Eli run away from Frankenstein's monster or he would understand the misery that the he (the monster) has endure and make friends with this creation of the man?

I read the book years ago and was surprised that I felt so much sympathy for him.I guess all things be equal I'd have to say the monster.Although if Eli told me that she would never hurt me I would follow her to the ends of the world Eli would make friends with it.Eli,when she's not killing,is a kind and compassionate child and she would know how it must feel.

[metoo]

This last few days I been reading Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, and I been thinking about the similarities between the "creature" and Eli, and I would like to know what you guys (and girls too) think about this questions.
1. Who of this two would you trust, a pretty twelve year old vampire that had killed several people, or a harmless but ugly "creature" that only wishes the company and love of another human being?

I think that it might be hard to gain the trust of any of these, and trust always have to be mutual. Apart from that, since the monster have no incentive to feed on me, he seems somewhat more trustworthy...

2. Would Eli run away from Frankenstein's monster or he would understand the misery that the he (the monster) has endure and make friends with this creation of the man?

Eli wouldn't need to fear the monster, so he might not run away. Perhaps he would initially be cautiously curious, and then find a soul mate of sorts. However, Eli might also regard the monster as prey, and therefore might finish him off before any friendship would have time to evolve.

[SpartanAltego]

The monster isn't harmless at all, though. As his experiences grow more bleak, a callus forms on whatever soul he possesses and he commits several horrific acts purely to spite and torment Frankenstein. He kills innocent people to suit this need for revenge, and only at the very end does he realize what he has become and feels remorse.

Eli and the monster cannot be the same, because Eli only kills as a means to live (or to save another's life, namely Oskar's). The monster, pitiable as he is, murders by choice and choice alone.

[metoo]

... Eli only kills as a means to live (or to save another's life, namely Oskar's) ...

That is not completely true. In the novel Eli killed Jonny even though he was no threat to Oskar at the time - especially not with Eli present. In the film, Eli killed both Conny and Martin, neither of whom posed any actual threat.

Now, I find this an interesting subject. Why did Eli kill the other boy/boys? Apart from JAL's personal motivations for revenge, what would be the in-story reason for Eli to kill those people?

And what does killing them say about Eli's personality?

You may also remember that just a day later, Eli was very close to kill Stefan Larsson in Karlstad, for the only reason that Stefan had disturbed Oskar and Eli. This is all according to Stefan himself, obviously, but JAL wrote it that way so I think we can trust Stefan's interpretation. It seems that Eli is a much more ferocious and dangerous individual than many at this forum appears to think (perhaps myself included)...

[gkmoberg1]

In the basement scene, Eli is afraid that he would kill Oskar. So he runs off. Elias knows he lacks full control when in a blood lust / vampire state. Such was his state during the pool scene. Elias was emotionally distraught, formed as a vampire and attacking. The ones he killed there might been simply as a result of their proximity, the briefest perception (by Elias) they were or might be a threat, or perhaps they started to initiate some action. There is a lot of contrast between that confrontation and the next evening's in Karlstad. There, Eli was not distraught, not formed as vampire and knew he was control of the scene (Stefan posed no real threat).

As for Eli and Frankenstein's creation - both are best feared. However I feel far more uncertain about the creature's motivations and likely next actions than I do Eli's. Yet I would not recommend either. If we widen the choice set to film Eli, novel Eli and Frankenstein's creature, I propose film Eli would be the safest.

[SpartanAltego]

... Eli only kills as a means to live (or to save another's life, namely Oskar's) ...

That is not completely true. In the novel Eli killed Jonny even though he was no threat to Oskar at the time - especially not with Eli present. In the film, Eli killed both Conny and Martin, neither of whom posed any actual threat.

Now, I find this an interesting subject. Why did Eli kill the other boy/boys? Apart from JAL's personal motivations for revenge, what would be the in-story reason for Eli to kill those people?

And what does killing them say about Eli's personality?

You may also remember that just a day later, Eli was very close to kill Stefan Larsson in Karlstad, for the only reason that Stefan had disturbed Oskar and Eli. This is all according to Stefan himself, obviously, but JAL wrote it that way so I think we can trust Stefan's interpretation. It seems that Eli is a much more ferocious and dangerous individual than many at this forum appears to think (perhaps myself included)...

Perhaps I misspoke - Eli kills for utilitarian purposes except when it comes to Oskar. For Oskar, Eli becomes violent through emotion rather than need, and thus all the more dangerous to anyone who threatens them. It's the double-edged nature of their relationship, wherein Eli becomes humanized yet also far more deadly. Eli killing Jonny (and the other boys save one in the film) seems like a fairly straightforward case of revenge-murder, but it could also be a practical choice. Leaving too many witnesses no matter of absurd their story would draw attention. The fewer there are to corroborate what happened, the better.

It could also be a matter of blood-thirst overtaking Eli in the moment. Killing Jimmy may've roused the hunger depending on if Eli fed at all in days since leaving Blackeberg, and so he additionally killed Jonny (who was close by and could've conceivably attempted to intervene).

As for Stefan, I don't discount that he was legitimately in danger in the moment he walked in on the blood pact. But if we consider the emotional context of that moment, relevant to Eli's demonstrated personality and history, it would be the equivalent of walking in whilst the two made love for the first time if they were an older couple. It was an intensely intimate moment, and Eli is shown to have something of a temper when sufficiently provoked. His attitude in that moment appears more the exception than the rule. Plus, we have to keep in mind that while Eli did indeed come close to killing Stefan, he ultimately did not. Still, it cannot be denied that Eli is intolerant of threats to Oskar, their connection, and anything that would intrude on that space.

The monster, by comparison, only ever takes life in the pursuit of personal gratification. And unlike Eli, whose actual followed-through murders are either practical or a case of righteous violence, the monster deliberately targets those who have not wronged him so as to inflict emotional cruelty on the maker who forsook him. He doesn't kill to survive, or even to defend a life he deems as important as his own, or as a response to being provoked. They are calculated killings used to serve a malicious end, counting on the evil of the act to transmit suffering to Frankenstein. There is no greater good or need being served.

What does it say about Eli? Only that he possesses both the power and the willingness to violently strike out at threats to the ones he loves, as well as freedom from the consequences of such actions. It's a human response, all the more intense because of his perpetual child-state. A grown mind might understand the need for measured violence versus guilt-by-association (and I say 'might' very strongly). A twelve-year old will not. Certainly he would have little interest in being regaled with the value of life when he has already developed a threshold for taking it, and has no reason to see Jimmy or Jonny as having positive attributes worth preserving.

He's dangerous, but ultimately what makes him so isn't that he possesses any exceptional personality traits that cleave him from the normal populace. It's that he has the power to act on his impulses and evade the consequences of social fallout, prison, or execution. He exists outside civilization and so is not beholden to its rules. Which makes it all the more telling that we only have two extremely emotional outbursts by Eli that run contrary to the restraint he otherwise shows. That is an indicator of his character more than the opposite, I think.

[artredfield1999]

We have to remember that Eli or Elias was born like a normal pretty boy and he had a family that loved him. Frankenstein's monster was created in a room and when he comes alive Victor runs away horrified of what he has created, in the same way as Eli I don't think that the monster enjoys killing people, I think that his reasons could be "the means to an end" the monster only kills people in revenge towards Frankenstein and humanity itself.
In my opinion, the reasons that the creature gives are more reasonable.
I know that everyone in this forum has a different point of view and I like to know what do you guys think.

[SpartanAltego]

Killing innocent bystanders to obtain revenge on an absentee parental figure and to fulfill a vague misanthropic attitude is not reasonable. The monster proves himself capable of reading, writing, and is indeed exceptionally intelligent with all the reasoning capabilities of an educated man. He deliberately disregards those higher reasoning abilities to murder innocents who have never wronged him, beginning with Victor's younger brother, a child. Killing for satisfaction is precisely what the monster does - not perhaps the deed itself, but the end result of Frankenstein suffering as the monster believes he deserves.

Eli lived for over two hundred years without, to our knowledge, succumbing to that extreme of sadism. In the face of the cruelty and evil of the "wig man" and "hollow woman" Eli resolved that he did not want to be like them. Not a predator or a monster. The creature, by contrast, lives for a very short time and attributes multiple individual negative events as being blanket-applicable to all of humanity so that he has an excuse to release the anger and resentment within on whomever he chooses.

What is most defeating to your argument of the creature's motives being 'reasonable' is that he himself refutes them at the very end. Just as he inherited the human capacity for evil, he also inherited he capacity to recognize that he was wrong and feel remorse. And so he ends the story seeking his own destruction, believing a monster - for what is what he shaped himself into - must not be allowed to torment the people of the world any longer.

[metoo]

Perhaps I misspoke - Eli kills for utilitarian purposes except when it comes to Oskar. For Oskar, Eli becomes violent through emotion rather than need, and thus all the more dangerous to anyone who threatens them. It's the double-edged nature of their relationship, wherein Eli becomes humanized yet also far more deadly. Eli killing Jonny (and the other boys save one in the film) seems like a fairly straightforward case of revenge-murder, but it could also be a practical choice. Leaving too many witnesses no matter of absurd their story would draw attention. The fewer there are to corroborate what happened, the better.

Except that in the novel a bunch of boys were standing at the other and of the pool, watching. They were not killed. Reducing the number of witnesses therefore doesn't seem to be the reason.

Eli did tell Oskar that he killed because he had to. He also stated that he was not a vampire, and that there was a difference. A very big one. We assume that by this he wanted to distance himself from the wig man and the infected woman. He was not like them. But that doesn't mean that he never killed for other reasons than to feed himself, also before he met Oskar. He could have killed some that actually had threatened him. He might have killed a few others that he just thought was threatening him. These might all be excused as "utilitarian purposes". But what if he also had killed a couple that just annoyed him, like Stefan Larsson did? He had the capacity, apparently. How can we know that Karlstad was the only occasion of this behaviour?