Monster vs. Cyborg

As I read the article about monsters and cyborgs I found it very interesting in the abstract how it said "since we are all cyborgs and cyborgs is in the modern version of Shelley's monster, then we are all monsters." And I agree with her that this is a very hard concept to understand. It's stated that we could use "humans" and "monsters" as interchangeable terms. The argument is that people would not like to be called a monster just because of the way we traditionally think of the word monster to mean. I don't think this is a huge deal because if we all began calling each other monsters eventually the bad connotation of the word would go away. I completely agree with the striking similarities between the monster and the cyborg. Both of them are woman's creation, they are products of science, they both have problematic relations to their "fathers" and they both transgress.
The monster has the combination of a hideous body, and a persuasive tongue. The point s made that at the beginning of the Frankenstein movie Frankenstein was not evil at all but very good and he glowed with humanity, but after a while misery made him upset. It was the interaction with other human beings that made him so upset and cause the trouble that he did. I believe that Frankenstein was not made a bad person, he was turned into one, and so everyone can say that the monster in inherently harmful.
The question comes up was he tainted with monstrosity or humanity? I would have to side with the fact that he was tainted with humanity rather than monstrosity. It was the humans that were always hunting him down and causing so much trouble for him. In general he was a good being. When the old man had him in his home and the old man was being nice to him he responded in a very sensible way. Then the other humans came and started yelling bloody murder for no reason and Frankenstein went haywire. I think one of the biggest problems was the fact that his physical presence caused people to think he was a worser monster than he was. His physical presence erased his verbal eloquence as the author puts it. The last point that the paper makes is the fact that the creator of the monster may be the one to blame for everything in which case she would rather be considered a monster rather than the creator. I would also have to agree with this because the creator was just doing this for his own good and not looking out for the monster or the rest of society. Frankenstein was thrown into a society that he could not come to terms with and that was not fair.