Literature (like all art) is a representation of the writers’ reality. By this definition a novel can take the form of any theme: Social Injustice, human psyche, or any single emotion the writer can be feeling at the time. This is the reason why I try to incorporate literature into my everyday life, and by extensions sports as well.
Over the past two weeks baseball has seen the fall of Alex Rodriguez and Josh Hamilton. Episodes different from one another in various ways that converge on a central argument “what do we consider unforgivable?” And if something is unforgivable, does that make it a monster? In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein we are confronted with a similar situation. One that I hope can shine light unto our overshadowed central argument.
Victor Frankenstein is mad (he is insane, I mean) and has lost his life to the pursuit of the creation of life. Frankenstein is successful and achieves his goal of creating life, but is unsatisfied with it. Ugly and eight feet tall he convinces himself that he has created a murderous monster. But is the creature Victor creates really a monster? The answer to this question is simple. No, he did not create a monster. In fact we are presented with heroic acts coming from the creation in various parts of the novel. Great feats of strength and courage, all for good. Yet the deprivation of love and understanding does lead to his eventual murdering of Elizabeth (name is in white lettering in order to conceal spoiler). Yes, he was ugly and wretched (or so Victor claims) but his only fault in life was being a victim of circumstance.
“There was none among the myriads of men that existed who would pity or assist me; and should I feel kindness towards my enemies? No: from that moment I declared everlasting war against the species, and, more than all, against him who had formed me, and sent me forth to this insupportable misery.” The monster – Frankenstein (Chapter 16)
There is perhaps no better citation to place things into perspective as the latter. One is born neither a monster nor a saint, but rather is shaped by their experiences. Josh Hamilton will serve me as an allusion for this. Hamilton is a drug addict that has been fighting his condition for the last ten years. Can we effectively call him a monster? If life led him to substance abuse, is he not like Frankenstein’s creation, who against his better judgment is somehow a victim of circumstance, even though he has great potential? I would argue that this is true, and that the Victor Frankenstein (the personal situation) that has created the drug-addict inside of him cannot be resolved by commands (sorry crazed twitter fans).
But what about A-Rod? Is he Frankenstein’s creature as well? And this is where it gets complicated. Alex Rodriguez cannot be defined by the creatures’ slowly decaying moral barrier. My reason being that the sports enhancing drugs Rodriguez was subject to are done out of deliberate planning in order to better his skills in baseball. As oppose to Hamilton who is forced by chemical imbalances in the brain to fall back into drug abuse. Alex Rodriguez embodies a young Victor Frankenstein (before the experiment) more than the creation. Being blinded by the need to succeed, willing to break any rule to become famous.
Neither one can be considered unforgivable or a monster. Yet the personal faults exhibited by Josh Hamilton seem to weight more on the conscious of the fans (in a negative manner) than Alex Rodriguez’ deliberate cheating. In order to truly consider Rodriguez as a monster we would first have to find his Frankenstein (a clear attempt to cheat himself that results in something he finds wretched or vile). This would be considered unforgivable, he would have created grief for both him and his teammates, fans and, managers all for personal gain. This would effectively make him a monster. But time will tell what is that he will become.
Sisyphus' baseball 