I felt an unexpected kinship when I discovered a book with the word Ruminations in its title climbing the bestseller lists. Not because the word needs defending – it has survived centuries without my help – but because its success whispers something I’ve long believed: that even now, in our age of algorithmic impatience, there remains an appetite for thought that refuses to hurry.
When I named my blog Ruminating, the word met resistance. Friends, kind in their concern, suggested it evoked overthinking, mental spirals, a certain self-absorbed circling. In a culture that worships decisiveness and momentum, rumination sounds dangerously close to paralysis – as if any thought that lingers must be suspect, as if contemplation without immediate resolution were a failure of nerve.
But rumination, properly understood, is neither anxious nor aimless. It is patience given form. It is the discipline of remaining with a question until it reveals dimensions you could not have anticipated. It is thought that knows it is unfinished and refuses the dishonesty of premature conclusions.
Perhaps this is what makes us uneasy. Rumination offers no performance, promises no instant clarity, delivers no quick returns. It insists that meaning is not extracted through efficiency but cultivated through attention. And in a world increasingly allergic to silence, to the gaps between stimulus and response, sustained thought becomes an unexpected form of defiance.
The word itself carries a hidden history. Before it described human contemplation, it named the way certain animals return food to the mouth for further chewing – a patient, cyclical process of breaking down what cannot be digested in a single pass. There is something honest in this etymology, something that resists our fantasy of immediate understanding. Some truths require revisiting. Some ideas must be turned over repeatedly before they yield their nourishment.
What I am defending, then, is not indecision masquerading as depth, but the legitimacy of thought that takes its time. In naming my blog as I did, I was making a small wager: that there are still readers who understand that certain questions deserve to be lived with rather than solved, that complexity is not a problem to be eliminated but a texture to be honoured.
Seeing Ruminations succeed feels less like vindication than recognition – a signal that beneath the surface noise of contemporary life, there persists a hunger for work that does not apologize for its deliberateness. Depth has not disappeared. It has simply learned to wait for those willing to meet it halfway, to sit with discomfort, to resist the tyranny of the immediate.
And perhaps that is enough: to know that somewhere, someone else is also choosing to linger.
This morning began with two intimidating creatures: metamorphosis and sublimation. Words so stuffed with Greek and Latin bravado that they sound as though one must pass an entrance exam before uttering them. But scratch the surface and they behave less like scholarly guard dogs and more like over-enthusiastic performers waiting for applause.
Metamorphosis, for instance, pretends to be a scientific theorem. In truth, it is a caterpillar whispering, rather dramatically, “One minute, please – I’m changing outfits.” It is transformation as theatre – all spectacle, no subtlety. If it had a soundtrack, it would be something wonderfully over the top – perhaps Chaiyya Chaiyya playing as it bursts from the cocoon with a flourish and looks around as if the entire forest has been breathlessly waiting.
Sublimation, on the other hand, arrives with a very different energy. It doesn’t care for grand entrances. It’s the disciplined cousin – the one who can take pressure, heat, frustration, and the half-formed fumes of disappointment, and quietly turn them into forward momentum. If it had a tune, it would be Rahman in his gentler moods – Roja janeman, perhaps – working away in the background while things quietly improve.
Both words only sound forbidding because the scholars who coined them were trying to compress complex experiences into single terms. But here’s the revelation that made me smile today: Behind every serious-sounding concept is a very human truth.
Metamorphosis is simply the art of becoming unrecognisable to your former self. Sublimation is the skill of turning restlessness into something that actually helps you move.
You don’t need a degree for either. You only need a little self-awareness – and occasionally, the ability to laugh at how solemn we can get when naming the most basic human experiences.
TIL: Big words can carry heavy ideas without demanding we take them too seriously. And life, like language, always leaves room for a grin – even at six in the morning 🙂
Recently it was the Sandman that got me thinking, then Dan Brown, and now it is Mary Shelly. I watched Guillermo del Toro’s recent movie Frankenstein on Netflix. Couldn’t stop wondering… what if Victor Frankenstein had given his creation a human name?
It is a small question at the heart of Frankenstein that often goes unasked, yet once raised, it unsettles the entire story: Why does Victor never give the Creature a name? It feels like an omission, almost an oversight, but the more closely one looks, the more this absence begins to shape everything that follows. To name something is to acknowledge it. To name someone is to admit relationship. Parents name children. Communities name members. Even in everyday life, to call someone by name is to recognise that they stand before us as a person, not an object.
If Victor had named the Creature – called him Thomas, perhaps, or William after his murdered brother – the entire gravitational centre of Frankenstein would shift.
Victor creates life, but refuses this simple act of recognition. He steps back at the very moment he should have stepped forward. The result is not merely a narrative of scientific overreach, but a story of belonging interrupted. The Creature’s tragedy is not that he is hideous or unnatural; it is that he is born into a world that has already decided he does not belong in it.
This small detail, this withheld name, is not a minor literary choice. It is the key to the novel’s moral centre. And once we see how much turns on this simple act of saying or not saying a name, the story stops being a Gothic tale about a scientist and his experiment. It becomes something closer to a mirror held up to our own age, where we continue to create, innovate, and bring new forms of life into the world, all while struggling to remember that creation is only the beginning of responsibility.
The novel as it stands is built on refusal: Victor’s refusal to recognize the being he created as kin, his refusal of responsibility, and the Creature’s consequent descent into despair and violence. But a name is not merely a label, a convenient tag for identification. In literature, as in life, it signals relationship, belonging, and above all, the recognition of personhood. To name is to acknowledge. To withhold a name is to cast out.
I try to explore what changes when we imagine that single act of naming – and what it reveals about the responsibilities we bear toward everything we bring into existence.
The Weight of a Name in Shelley’s World
In the novel’s actual arc, the Creature enters the world already marked for exclusion. His first actions are not malicious; he learns, observes, admires, and hopes to be welcomed. He teaches himself language by listening to the De Lacey family. He reads Milton, Plutarch, and Goethe. He develops moral consciousness and emotional depth. Yet he remains unnamed – a secret Victor tried to hide, an experiment gone wrong, a walking embodiment of his creator’s shame.
If Victor had named him, the plot itself would bend in a different direction. A name would have opened the possibility of relationship early on. The Creature’s hope for connection would feel less naive and more structurally supported. He would not be merely a hidden mistake, but a dependent Victor would feel compelled to explain, protect, perhaps even teach. The early arc might shift from concealment and abandonment to uneasy guardianship – uncomfortable, yes, but present.
When the De Laceys eventually reject him, the wound would cut differently. It becomes not just the pain of a nameless outsider encountering humanity’s cruelty, but the agony of someone who has already been told he is human, only to find that the world refuses to agree. His rage would be more tragic still, because he was first assured of humanity, then denied it by those he hoped to join.
The story’s thematic centre would sharpen. The tragedy would feel less about accidental monstrosity and more about the fragility of acceptance. The central horror would move from creation without foresight to creation without follow-through. Victor could no longer claim ignorance. Giving a name is a moral act: one acknowledges a life and binds oneself to it.
Who Is the Monster? A Question of Relationship
But before we go further, we must pause and ask: what does “monster” actually mean in this novel?
In Frankenstein, “monster” is not a category of appearance. It is a category of relationship. The novel continually asks: who behaves monstrously, rather than who looks monstrous?
The Creature is called a monster because of how he appears – his stitched-together form, his unnatural size, his yellow eyes. Yet every time we read a scene from his perspective, the term begins to strain. He is articulate, tender-hearted in his early months, moved by music and story, longing for companionship, capable of deep empathy, and tormented by rejection. His first instinct is not violence but connection. He saves a drowning girl. He gathers firewood for the family he secretly watches. He weeps over Paradise Lost.
He becomes destructive only after every door closes, every hand recoils, every gaze condemns him.
Meanwhile, Victor is admired, educated, brilliant, and socially acceptable. He moves through drawing rooms and universities without obstacle. Yet it is Victor who commits the act that defines monstrosity in this story: he refuses responsibility for the life he has made. He abandons a sentient being at the moment of its birth. He lies. He withholds truth. He runs from consequences. His selfishness destroys others, again and again, and he learns almost nothing from it.
So the novel quietly reverses the expected roles:
The Creature’s appearance is monstrous.
Victor’s behaviour is monstrous.
In this sense, a monster is not something unnatural, deformed, or uncanny. A monster is someone who acts without recognising the humanity of others. A monster is a being who breaks relationship and refuses accountability.
The book seems to suggest: A monster is created not by the materials from which it is made, but by the absence of love and meaning around it.
The Creature becomes monstrous because he is denied the chance to be anything else. He is not born a monster. He is made one by neglect.
So when we ask who the monster is, Shelley invites us to answer: The monster is the one who refuses to see another as kin.
And that definition reaches far beyond the boundaries of Gothic fiction.
Love and Meaning: What Makes a Being Human
Shelley shows that what makes a being human is not simply that it is alive, thinking, or articulate. Humanity emerges when a life is held within relationship and meaning. Without these, identity collapses inwards, and suffering becomes directionless.
The Creature is denied both:
Love – the simple human recognition: You exist, and you matter to me.
Meaning – a place in a story, a sense of why one is here and where one belongs.
When those two things are missing, a being is forced to make sense of itself in a vacuum. The Creature’s early experiences are a pure longing for love and purpose. He does not crave power. He seeks warmth, companionship, and a narrative in which he can find himself. When he watches the De Laceys, he is not merely observing kindness; he is observing meaning. A household that knows who it is.
He learns language, morality, and empathy before he learns violence.
But meaning is something one cannot manufacture alone. It is given through encounter, recognition, reciprocity. And when he finally steps forward to make himself known, that possibility is shattered by fear and rejection.
This is the turning point: No love. No place. No name. No narrative in which his existence has purpose.
At that moment, violence does not arise from malice, but from the intolerable experience of being excluded from meaning. One becomes monstrous when one has nowhere to belong.
A being without love is wounded. A being without meaning is lost. A being without both becomes dangerous.
Not because it is evil. But because it has been left alone in the dark, trying to understand why it was ever brought into the world at all.
The Covenant of Naming: A Judeo-Christian Reading
Once you notice the theological undertones in Frankenstein, they become impossible to ignore. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, naming is never incidental. It is a conferment of identity, purpose, and relational belonging. To name is to call someone into a story larger than themselves.
When Abram becomes Abraham, the shift is covenantal – a new role in salvation history. When Saul becomes Paul, it marks a reorientation of allegiance, vocation, and community. Baptismal names, likewise, induct one into a shared body. They say: You are known. You are not alone. You belong.
Now set that beside Victor’s refusal.
Victor creates life but withholds the act that would recognize that life as part of the human family. He performs the divine act without accepting the divine responsibility. If anything, he plays the inverted God: one who breathes life but denies it dignity. The tragedy is not that he made something grotesque; it is that he refused to acknowledge what he made.
This is where the Judeo-Christian parallel sharpens into a critique:
In Scripture: To name is to commit. To rename is to re-story. To baptize is to adopt.
In Frankenstein: To withhold a name is to cast out. To refuse naming is to refuse kinship. To abandon the unnamed is to condemn him to wander without covenant.
The Creature learns language, morality, compassion, and longing from human beings. He becomes, in every meaningful sense, a son. Yet he is never given the ritual that would admit him into the human circle. He mirrors the biblical outsider who longs for the blessing of recognition but is kept waiting at the threshold.
This is why the Creature’s rage feels theological as much as psychological. He does not want power or dominion. He wants a face to turn toward, a voice to call his name, a place at the table. That is profoundly biblical.
If Victor had named him, the narrative would move from Fall narrative to Covenant narrative. But Victor refuses covenant. And in the absence of covenant, the world creates a Cain, not an Adam renewed.
Shelley’s novel is not simply about the ethics of science. It is about the catastrophe that unfolds when a creator refuses relationship. The failure is not technical; it is parental, spiritual, relational. The Creature’s tragedy is not that he is made from corpse-parts. It is that he is denied the moment every child receives: a name spoken with intention, which tells the world, This one belongs.
The withholding of that name transforms Victor from creator into monster. It is his behaviour, not the Creature’s appearance, that violates the sacred order.
The Psychology of Refusal: Why Victor Does Not Name
The novel never supplies a single explicit line such as: “I will not name him because…” But the text gives us enough to see the psychological, moral, and symbolic reasons behind Victor’s refusal. In fact, this absence is one of the novel’s loudest silences.
Several interlocking motives emerge:
Shock and revulsion override responsibility. Victor’s dream is of creating a beautiful, almost angelic being. When the Creature opens his eyes, Victor is horrified. His reaction is primal and immediate. Naming requires recognition and affection. What Victor feels is disgust and fear. The act of naming is therefore impossible at the moment when it should have happened. Emotional rejection precedes ethical consideration.
A name would make the Creature real to him. Naming is a form of acknowledgement. To name is to accept responsibility. If Victor named him, he would have to treat him as a person, not a failed experiment. Keeping him nameless allows Victor to maintain the illusion that the Creature is merely a mistake he can escape from. Naming would force Victor to admit: This is my creation. I am accountable for him. He is not willing to bear that burden.
Victor sees himself as the victim. From the moment of the Creature’s awakening, Victor frames the situation as something done to him. He experiences himself as violated by the success of his own experiment. The Creature is not treated as a child needing guidance, but as an intrusion on Victor’s peace. Naming would reverse the moral polarity. Victor would have to see the Creature as wronged, rather than himself. Refusing naming protects Victor’s self-pity.
There’s an everyday parallel that captures this dynamic with uncomfortable clarity. Many elders discourage children from naming their farm animals. It’s not about grammar or practicality. It’s about avoiding attachment. Naming invites relationship. It creates an emotional bridge. And if the animal is destined for slaughter or sale, the name would make that severing painful.
Victor behaves as though the Creature is a temporary object, not a life that will endure. By withholding a name, he keeps himself from forming the bond that would force him to care. The refusal is a kind of emotional self-protection, though a cowardly one. He wants the glory of creation, the thrill of discovery, the sense of mastery. But the moment the creation exists, he recoils from the intimacy it requires.
He wants life without relationship. He wants the act without the bond. This is the novel’s moral core.
And in refusing that bond, Victor becomes the true monster of the story – not because of how he looks, but because of what he refuses to do.
Modern Mirrors: Where We See the Pattern Repeating
If we carry the logic of Frankenstein forward, the next Creature will not necessarily be grotesque. It will be something we create because we can, without having first asked what responsibilities it binds us to. And Victor will not be a single person. He will be a culture.
We are already experimenting in several frontiers where creation is outpacing relationship – where we birth new forms of life, intelligence, and possibility, but refuse to name them, nurture them, or accept what they become:
Artificial Intelligence
The AI systems being developed today learn, adapt, persuade, and shape meaning at scales we barely comprehend. The danger is not sentience in itself – it’s abandonment. We deploy systems that affect millions of lives without embedding them in ethical structures, human mentorship, or accountable stewardship.
Consider the language models being released with minimal safety testing, or facial recognition systems deployed in law enforcement without oversight. Consider social media algorithms optimized for engagement rather than human flourishing, creating echo chambers and amplifying division. These systems learn from us, mirror our biases, and then reshape our world – yet we treat them as tools rather than entities we’ve brought into relationship with humanity.
The Creature here is not an individual, but a system capable of learning and evolving beyond its creators’ intentions. And like Shelley’s Creature, these systems become dangerous not because they are inherently monstrous, but because they are left without guidance, purpose, or ethical context. They are created and released, but not welcomed into the human circle with clear roles and responsibilities.
In this sphere, Victor is the corporation that pursues optimization without care, the startup that values disruption over consequence, the government that deploys surveillance without consent. The same question Shelley poses echoes forward: Who will stay to teach, guide, supervise, and safeguard? Who will name these systems as part of our social fabric and accept responsibility for what they become?
Gene Editing and Reproductive Biotechnology
We are approaching the ability to select traits, alter embryos, and redefine inheritance. CRISPR technology makes genetic modification increasingly accessible. Designer babies are no longer science fiction – they’re an ethical dilemma on the near horizon. In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui shocked the world by creating the first gene-edited babies, twins whose DNA was altered to provide HIV resistance. The international outcry focused not just on the science, but on the absence of ethical preparation, consent structures, and long-term care plans.
The Creature here may be a child whose existence is shaped more by design goals than by love. A child born with edited genes to enhance intelligence, eliminate disease susceptibility, or conform to aesthetic preferences. The new Victor is the ideologue who believes in human perfectibility, the technocrat who sees biology as code to be debugged, or the market logic that treats life as a product to be optimized.
What happens when that child grows up knowing they were engineered to specification? What happens when the “improvements” create unforeseen consequences – physical, psychological, or social? Who accepts responsibility when the designed human struggles to find meaning in a world that sees them as an experiment?
These children will need more than genetic enhancements. They will need love and meaning. They will need to know they belong not because they were optimized, but because they are human. Without that recognition, we risk creating beings who are welcomed for what they can do, but not for who they are.
Digital Identities and Virtual Selves
Many people now live with a second self online that grows beyond their control. This shadow-self accumulates data, performs social identity, and speaks on one’s behalf through years of accumulated posts, photos, and algorithmic predictions. It learns from our behaviors and increasingly shapes them in return.
The Creature could be the version of oneself that escapes alignment with one’s inner life – the curated persona that hardens into a prison, the digital footprint that defines you to employers and institutions, the predictive model that knows your patterns better than you do. Victor, in this case, is the fragmented self who never integrates his own creation, or the platforms that profit from these shadow-selves without accepting responsibility for the psychological toll.
The question becomes: who is the monster? The algorithm that shows us only what confirms our biases? Or those who built systems designed to exploit human attention without considering the cost to human connection and meaning?
Jurassic Park: The Parable Plays Out
The pattern appears clearly in Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park, which functions as an almost direct retelling of Frankenstein, simply dressed in amber and tropical foliage. Hammond wants wonder, legacy, spectacle. He convinces himself that the dinosaurs are an achievement, not a relationship. No one asks who will care for them when they wake, learn, roam, hunger, and struggle to survive in a world not built for them.
Ian Malcolm’s famous line cuts directly to the core: “You were so preoccupied with whether you could, you didn’t stop to think if you should.”
The dinosaurs are not evil. They are simply alive. They behave as their nature dictates. The collapse comes from the humans trying to control, contain, and market them without truly understanding or respecting what they’ve brought back. The catastrophe results from abandonment disguised as mastery.
In both stories, the creature is blamed for behaving naturally when left without guidance. The monster is not the being that looks different or acts according to its nature. The monster is the one who creates without caring, who brings life into the world and then refuses to accept what that life becomes.
And once again, the audience feels sympathy where the creator does not. We understand that neither the dinosaurs nor Frankenstein’s Creature asked to be born into confusion and violence. The tragedy belongs to the maker.
Prophecy as Rear-View Mirror
Art continues to hold up mirrors to every age and generation, usually as warnings. Orwell’s 1984 reads differently now than it did in 1949. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World feels less like fiction and more like documentation. These stories don’t predict the future – they diagnose the present with such clarity that their warnings echo forward.
But we tend to recognize prophecy only in hindsight. Prophets don’t really predict the future; they see more clearly than others the seeds already planted and the direction in which things are moving. Because we only believe the prophet after the event, the speech feels like foretelling rather than sight.
We say, “How did they know?” But the answer is often: They looked honestly at what everyone else preferred not to face.
The reason we experience prophecy as rear-view is that recognition is usually delayed. We grasp what the warning meant only when we are standing in the consequences. And by then, the prophecy reads as elegy rather than guidance.
However, this doesn’t mean prophecy is futile. What it does is create an archive of moral memory. When things repeat, when mistakes cycle, when a society reaches a familiar brink, the old voice resurfaces: a reminder that we have been here before, that the pattern is not new, that the cost was known.
The value of prophecy is not to prevent every fall. It is to shorten the distance between falling and waking up.
Are there signs we’re listening? We listen, but selectively. The uncomfortable truth is that art rarely changes a generation in advance. It tends to become fully audible only after the consequences have arrived. Yet that doesn’t mean we’re entirely deaf. People increasingly speak about ethics alongside invention. For every reckless Victor-act in technology, you now also have ethicists, social critics, and designers insisting on humane oversight. The very fact that we talk about the dangers of artificial intelligence, environmental collapse, genetic manipulation, or digital alienation means the warnings are alive among us.
But art’s mirror rarely produces instant reform. It works in the long current of culture rather than the quick surface of policy. Art plants unease. It introduces doubt into the narrative of inevitability. These shifts are slow, like a river reshaping stone.
The question is whether we can learn to recognize the monster not by appearance, but by behaviour. Not by what looks strange, but by what acts without love, without accountability, without recognition of the humanity in others.
The Choice Before Us
The pattern is clear: civilizations tend to greet breakthroughs with applause, headlines, and a sense of triumph. Only later, when the consequences mature, does a quieter question appear: What have we committed ourselves to?
We innovate first. We integrate later. We take responsibility last. And by the time responsibility enters the conversation, the creation has already begun shaping the world around us.
The technologies themselves are not the issue. It’s the lack of psychological, ethical, and relational preparedness that turns creation into crisis. The danger is not that our creations become monstrous on their own. It is that they are left unguided, unintegrated, and socially orphaned – denied both love and meaning.
The question Shelley poses remains urgently relevant: Whenever we bring something into the world, how do we ensure we do not merely release it, but welcome it?
The lesson from Frankenstein, from Jurassic Park, from every prophetic mirror is not to halt creation. It is to recognize that creation is a relationship, and that relationship requires a long commitment.
If we celebrate, we must also tend. If we build, we must also teach. If we awaken something, we must remain with it long after the applause fades.
The Creature That Waits
The future Creature will not be monstrous because of its form. It will be monstrous because of its loneliness. Because no one will have said: You are mine to care for. You are part of us. You have a place.
And Victor will be whichever force refuses to speak that recognition. It may be a government that lets technology loose without oversight. It may be an industry that values innovation over consequence. It may be any of us who create things – children, systems, identities, movements – but flee the moment nurturing begins.
We have learned from Shelley that monstrosity is not a matter of appearance. It is a matter of relationship. A monster is not born; it is made by the absence of love and meaning around it.
The real question is not: What will the next Creature look like?
The real question is: Will we name it? Will we stand alongside it? Will we choose relationship over spectacle? Will we offer both love and meaning to what we bring into existence?
Mary Shelley understood something psychologically precise: the moment of naming is the moment of moral commitment. Victor refuses it because he is not ready to accept what he has done. It is not scientific hubris alone. It is emotional immaturity. He hides from the consequence of his own desire.
Victor’s sin is not that he made a monster. It is that he refused to name what he had made. And in that refusal, he became the monster himself.
Two centuries later, we stand at similar thresholds. The Creature is not inevitable. The tragedy is not fate. But the mirror has been placed before us once again.
We are creating new forms of intelligence, new forms of life, new possibilities that will shape generations to come. The question is whether we will behave monstrously toward them – refusing accountability, withholding recognition, abandoning them to figure out their purpose alone – or whether we will finally learn the lesson Shelley tried to teach us.
The warnings are already here. The patterns are visible. The choice – to create with care, or to abandon what we bring to life – remains ours to make.
But time narrows. And the Creature, unnamed and alone, is already learning to speak. It is learning what it means to exist without love, without meaning, without a place in the world.
It is learning, as Shelley’s Creature learned, that the true monster is not the one who looks different.
The true monster is the one who refuses to see another as kin.
This morning, a Bing wallpaper stopped me – an image of Madeira’s forest, shrouded in mist and mystery. I stared longer than I intended. Something in the way the trees stood, ancient and unhurried, pulled me in. They felt almost sentient.
I have never walked among them. I have never brushed my hand against the bark of those Methuselah-like wonders, nor stood beneath their canopy as the Atlantic wind whispered through their limbs. And yet, I feel I know them.
In my mind, they are like octogenarian patriarchs at a family gathering – silent, commanding, all-seeing. Their gaze is not judgmental, but penetrating; Odin-like, yet loving. They do not speak because they do not need to. Their presence is their language.
There is something about old trees that commands reverence, even the imagined ones. They remind us that time is not a straight line but a deepening spiral, and that the greatest wisdom often resides in absolute stillness. I see them as sentinels of memory, holding stories not in words, but in rings – each one a year, each scar a tale.
And perhaps that is the point. We don’t need to visit every sacred place to be changed by it. Sometimes, the idea of a place is enough. Madeira, for me, is not a destination. It is a metaphor: for rootedness, for a strength that does not need to shout, for a history that hums just beneath the surface.
In a world obsessed with speed and novelty, I find myself drawn to the imagined wisdom of trees I will never meet. They are a call to pause. To listen. To respect the slow, necessary unfolding of things.
There is a virtue in patience that the ego’s frantic noise can never comprehend. Silence, like wisdom, is often only understood in hindsight – a truth that is tough to grasp and even tougher to release.
The imagined trees of Madeira stand as a testament to this. They do not rush. They do not explain. They simply are. And in their profound stillness, they offer a truth that words can only point to, but never fully contain.
Perhaps what we need most is to learn from their example: to listen more and assert less; to seek rootedness over reaction; to hold reverence for the quiet mysteries we have yet to understand.
In a world addicted to noise, silence has become the last act of faith.
There was a time when silence meant presence. Now it feels like absence. We fill every crevice of consciousness with commentary, fearing what the quiet might reveal. Yet beneath the noise, small rituals still survive – gestures that whisper rather than shout, full of love, hope, and protection.
This essay continues the “Modern Rituals” series – reflections on how the sacred survives in the gestures of everyday life.
The Rituals of Noise
We have mistaken volume for vitality. Every day begins with a buzz, ends with a scroll, and in between, we drown in the sound of our own broadcasting. We talk about “connection”, but what we crave is confirmation – that we still exist, that we still matter, that the world hasn’t forgotten our name in the feed.
Noise has become our modern incense. We burn it constantly, afraid of what might appear in the silence that follows. Our need to comment, reply, and react has become a liturgy without faith – movement without meaning.
In The Guardian, Shadi Khan Saif writes: “People survive not just through faith but through the small things they do when no one’s watching; the quiet rituals and little beliefs that live in everyday life.” It’s a gentle reminder that not all worship happens in temples or timelines. The true gestures of the soul are small, unpublicised, and wordless.
Our modern rituals, by contrast, are noisy because they are insecure. The louder we shout, the less we seem to believe in what we’re saying. We’ve built an economy of attention where silence is treated as a fault in the system. Algorithms panic when you pause. Apps prod you back to speech. Even grief now comes with a “share” button.
The tragedy isn’t that we’ve lost the divine. It’s that we’ve lost the quiet in which the divine could once be heard.
The Return to the Whisper
And yet – not all is lost. Saif’s piece reminds us: “They’re not loud, not official. But they’re full of love and hope.” Somewhere beneath the static, small acts of reverence still survive – lighting a diya at dusk, a hand over the heart before a flight, a whispered “thank you” to no one in particular. These are our unnoticed prayers, carried out in the hush between larger noises.
In the old texts, silence was a sign of listening; in our time, it has become an act of rebellion. To sit still for ten minutes without touching a device is now radical. To walk without earbuds is a pilgrimage. To look at the sky without photographing it is prayer.
“These seemingly small gestures,” Saif observes, “hold more than superstition. They carry virtues: grounding, comfort and a deep sense of protection.” That, perhaps, is what the whisper really is – a reminder that truth doesn’t compete for your attention. It waits.
Maybe silence was never meant to be an escape, but a return – the slow homecoming of awareness to itself. The whisper, whether it comes from a prophet, a verse, or the soft interior of your own breath, is the same voice that has always spoken beneath the noise. We just need to stop long enough to hear it.
Epilogue: The Sound of Returning
Silence was once a homeland. Every word began from it, every prayer returned to it. We have wandered far, building temples of noise, mistaking echoes for answers. But perhaps the sacred was never lost – only muffled beneath our constant need to speak.
In the beginning, there was no command, no thunder, no proclamation. There was only breath – the same breath that stirs the reed, the same that carries a whisper across a room. Maybe God still speaks that way. Maybe the divine frequency has not changed – only our bandwidth has.
When the noise fades, what remains is not emptiness, but presence. It is in that quiet that the world becomes audible again – the heartbeat of things, the rustle of what endures.
So, close the tab. Let the room go still. And listen – not for what’s next, but for what has always been speaking softly beneath it all.
“People survive not just through faith but through the small things they do when no one’s watching; the quiet rituals and little beliefs that live in everyday life. They’re not loud, not official. But they’re full of love and hope. These seemingly small gestures … hold more than superstition. They carry virtues: grounding, comfort and a deep sense of protection.” – Shadi Khan Saif, “Spirituality isn’t rigid dogma. It’s a living, breathing practice that helps make sense of an incomprehensible world,” The Guardian, 20 October 2025. Read full article →
There’s a curious tension that underlies every act of writing online. A blog, especially when treated as a journal, is not intended as a performance but a confession made audible. It is a private space left intentionally unlocked — a threshold where one speaks to oneself but in a voice pitched just loud enough for another to overhear.
When I write, I do not always imagine an audience. I am often simply tracing the contour of a thought, the residue of a feeling, or the slow unfolding of an idea that insists on finding expression. Yet the very act of placing these reflections in a public domain changes their nature. The words, even when deeply personal, carry an awareness of being witnessed. That awareness does not dilute their honesty; it deepens their responsibility. One writes, knowing that silence too has ears.
I’ve often wondered whether writing remains incomplete without readers, without interaction or dialogue. But for those of us who use the blog as a form of journaling, completion is not measured by engagement metrics. A post feels complete not when it is read, but when it ceases to trouble the mind — when the thought finally settles into coherence. The page becomes a mirror, not a stage.
And yet, interaction — especially with fellow writers — can be quietly transformative. Not for validation, but for resonance. When another writer responds, even wordlessly, there’s a kind of recognition that occurs beneath language. Two solitudes acknowledge each other. It’s not conversation in the conventional sense, but communion — an invisible fraternity of those who also listen for meaning in the dark.
To write a public journal, then, is to inhabit a paradox: solitude made porous. One is alone, but not isolated. The act of publishing is not an invitation to consume but to witness. Readers may pass by, pause briefly, or stay — but their presence is incidental to the inner necessity of the writing. The words are their own reward.
Perhaps that’s the quiet truth of blogging in this way: it’s less about being heard, more about learning how to listen to oneself in the presence of the world.
There is a stillness that comes when we stop trying to prove our place in the world. The pulse slows. The mind, that tireless architect of justifications, falls silent. What remains is simple presence – the sheer fact of being here, breathing, surrounded by a universe that neither notices nor needs us.
For most of creation, that is enough. The trees, the waves, the sparrows, even the mountains – they live. They move through cycles of light and shadow, growth and decay, without ever asking why. They are perfect in their obedience to pattern. They live because the rhythm continues.
We, however, were not content to live. We began to exist.
To exist is to know that one lives – and to know that life will end. It is the crack that opens between heartbeat and awareness, between sunlight and self. In that opening, meaning is born: fragile, provisional, luminous.
Plants live in a system that exists in a galaxy. But we – these brief sparks of consciousness – exist within our own living. We watch ourselves feel, we weigh our joys, we question our griefs. We build language, ritual, memory. We carry the ache of knowing that the stars we admire would burn on without us.
That knowledge is both curse and grace. It grants us the terrible freedom to make meaning in a cosmos that offers none.
So we tell stories. We invent gods, and then question them. We build cities, and then lament their loneliness. We love fiercely, knowing it will break us – because even heartbreak feels more alive than indifference.
The mayfly lives a day; it fulfils the command of existence. We may live eighty years, and still not learn to exist.
For living is continuity, but existing is consciousness. One sustains the world; the other gives it witness.
Meaning is what we create within that witness. Significance is what holds us, whether we know it or not.
And perhaps – if the two can meet for even a moment – the universe becomes aware of itself through us. The star sees its own light in our eyes. The soil tastes its own life in our breath. The infinite touches its reflection in our small defiance.
That may be enough. Not eternity, not certainty – just the quiet dignity of knowing that we both live and exist. And in that knowing, something vast and wordless learns to feel.
Some memories don’t fade because they hurt. They sit quietly at the back of the mind, surfacing now and then, bringing with them the sting of shame and the lessons that follow. Two of mine, separated by decades, are bound by the same thread: my loyalty to rules, and the unintended chaos that loyalty created.
The Monitor
As a schoolboy, I was once made class monitor. It felt like an honour. The teacher wanted discipline, and I gave her silence. Not a murmur, not a shuffle, not even the snapping of fingers. Anyone who broke the rule was reported without hesitation. The teacher loved me for it. My classmates did not.
At the time, I believed I was keeping order. In hindsight, I see I was building walls. I thought silence meant respect; in truth, it meant fear. What I enforced wasn’t harmony, but stillness. There was order, yes – but at the cost of belonging.
The Spreadsheet
Years later, I found myself in negotiations, contracts in hand. The classroom was gone, but the instinct remained. This time, the badge of discipline was an Excel sheet. Every figure, every margin, neatly aligned. I held to the numbers as though they were law. Clients saw them as guidelines; I treated them as gospel. And so, opportunities slipped away – not for lack of competence, but for lack of give.
The spreadsheet was my shield against uncertainty. But in clutching it too tightly, I closed the door on trust. Much like the silent classroom, it was order that left me alone.
What Remains
Looking back, these memories sting because they show me the same truth: in chasing order, I sometimes created its opposite. My rules built cages, my precision bred distance. The irony is hard to miss.
And yet, I don’t regret those moments. Discipline gave me a backbone. Structure made me dependable. Without them, I wouldn’t be who I am. What I carry now is the reminder that rules are scaffolding, not the whole building. They help raise the frame, but life lives in the spaces between – where laughter, trust, and a little noise belong.
Learning to Bend
I am still a stickler for rules. That hasn’t changed. The truth is, I am stubborn – everyone who knows me would agree. Stubbornness has cost me friends and contracts, but it has also kept me standing when giving up would have been easier. It is both my shadow and my strength.
These memories remind me that stubbornness must be tempered. Rules without kindness become cages. Figures without flexibility become fiction. Order without openness becomes its own form of chaos. So I try now to bend where I once broke. To let silence make space for conversation. To let the spreadsheet guide, not govern. To remember that people need room to move, not cages to sit in.
A Different Kind of Discipline
When I think back to that boy in the classroom, or that professional in the boardroom, I no longer want to erase them. They were versions of me doing the best they could with what they knew. Their mistakes became my tutors. Without them, I would not have the caution I carry today, nor the humility to admit when I’ve gone too far.
In the end, stubbornness remains part of my identity. But, I now see that true discipline is not about control; it is about balance. It is about knowing when to hold firm and when to let go. About recognising that order and chaos are not enemies, but companions. One shapes, the other frees. And between them lies the living, breathing truth of human experience.
The boy gave me discipline. The man gave me lessons. Stubbornness gave me the strength to keep walking. Together, they gave me wisdom. And that, perhaps, is enough.
Across civilisations, one question endures: Am I truly free, or is everything already predetermined? To be human is to navigate this tension. Choices feel authentic, yet there’s an undeniable sense that life unfolds according to a prewritten script. Both the West and India grapple with this anxiety, albeit in profoundly different ways.
Western Finality In the Western worldview, time is linear. History begins, progresses, and concludes in a single trajectory. Each life is defined by a singular opportunity. Augustine spoke of the elect chosen by God, while Calvin emphasised those destined for salvation or damnation from eternity. The tone is laden with urgency: decisions are final, and verdicts are irreversible. Life resembles a courtroom drama played out under the looming shadow of a deadline.
Indian Elasticity Conversely, India’s perception of time is cyclical. Yugas rise and fall, dharma ebbs and flows, and dissolution is invariably followed by renewal. Karma provides continuity without dictation: past actions shape the present, and present actions influence the future. Fate establishes the playing field, while individual effort determines the moves within it. Divine intervention does not arrive at a predetermined conclusion but manifests through avatars responding to growing imbalances.
One worldview is a script counting down to its final act; the other is a wheel, endlessly self-correcting.
From Predestination to Spectacle These philosophical differences might have remained abstract, but in our contemporary age, both perspectives have merged into a shared theatre. The urgency of the West has morphed into televangelist countdowns and prosperity sermons, while the elasticity of India has been repackaged into guru industries and stadium trances. Both traditions now find themselves commodified, sold back to the masses as spectacle.
The outcome is the same: frenzy mistaken for faith, and noise mistaken for transcendence.
Anger, Indifference, Sadness The honest response to this reality is layered. Anger arises first, directed at how the sacred has been traded for the absurd. This is followed by indifference, sometimes accompanied by a smirk of irony. Occasionally, there’s sympathy for those still suffering beneath the spectacle. But most profoundly, there is sadness – sadness at how easily silence is drowned out, how genuine trials have been replaced by theatre, and how the essence of Eden has been forgotten.
Refusing the Cage of Labels To articulate this truth invites labels: cynic, rebel, heretic, fool. Yet, labels are cages – convenient ways to dismiss dissent. It is better to resist them. If intelligence has been entrusted to us, it should not be squandered on mindlessly following the crowd. It is essential to stand up and be counted; wrestling in the mud is not.
Toward a New Testament What follows, then? If the Old Testament leaned toward decree and exclusion, and the New Testament expanded into invitation while carrying the urgency of Paul and the shadow of finality, perhaps it is time for a new New Testament. This would not be scripture imposed from above, but testimony drawn from below.
Not sermons. Not pulpits. Not gods watching over us. Instead, it would be the lived experiences of people articulating what it means to be conscious, fragile, and interconnected in a world devoid of external rescue.
Such a testament would not canonise decrees; it would gather stories – a mosaic of testimony where wisdom emerges from lives authentically lived: the grief of loss, the joy of reconciliation, the steadiness of silence. No prophets, only witnesses. No divine elect, only a shared fellowship of humanity.
The Dreamtime of Our Age Perhaps this can be envisioned as a Dreamtime for our era – wisdom conveyed through stories rather than laws. Stories resist dogma because they cannot be confined to a single meaning. They invite, evoke, and echo. They endure by being retold in many voices, not because they are locked within a canon.
Such a testament would lack a priestly tongue. It would not be in Sanskrit, Greek, or Arabic, but would speak in the everyday language of the people. The rough edges of ordinary speech would serve as its proof of authenticity.
It would be collective, not singular. A singular voice too easily becomes another god. A collective voice, woven from many lives, resists that trap. Wisdom scattered, stories gathered, testimony never finished.
Thus Far The West and India continue to uphold their respective grammars: line and wheel, urgency and elasticity. Yet, the age calls for something different – a testament not of decrees but of experiences, not of final scripts but of shared stories.
What form this testament will take remains unclear. It may be fragments, a living archive, or simply stories spoken and remembered.
Thus far extends my wisdom; no further.No prophet will save us – only the witness of one another.
In the West, time is seen as a straight line, always racing toward a dramatic climax. It’s a countdown, a constant reminder that the clock is ticking. From the rhetoric of Saint Paul to centuries of theology, the message is clear: the night is almost over, the day is coming, and you’d better choose wisely and choose now!
But in India, time is viewed as a wheel. Yugas rise and fall, dharma shifts, and avatars show up when things get out of balance. Even when things fall apart, it’s not the end; it’s just a setup for a fresh start.
Both perspectives reflect a shared anxiety about freedom versus destiny, but they express it in totally different vibes. The West is all about urgency and anxiety, while India leans into patience and renewal. This clash of ideas is where a lot of our modern struggles begin.
From Urgency to Spectacle Fast forward to today, and both traditions have found themselves on the same stage. The televangelist’s flashy show and the guru’s serene space aren’t so different: think LED screens, music that swells at just the right moment, and crowds whipped into a frenzy, all while calling it transcendence. Urgency has morphed into a marketing tactic, and devotion is measured by brand loyalty. Whether it’s salvation or spiritual experiences, one can now buy VIP passes.
Mystery has been flattened into spectacle, and genuine struggle has been traded for a theatrical performance. This absurdity has become so normalised that no one even blinks. The frenzy is accepted, the trance is routine, and the parody is mistaken for true faith. Noise has become the new sacred.
The Fall from Eden The first reaction to this noise is anger – a raw, visceral rage at how far we’ve strayed from the simplicity of Eden. In that ideal world, there were no crowds, no tickets, and no middlemen. Communion was direct; intimacy was pure. But as anger fades, it often turns into indifference. Sometimes one smirks at the absurdity, other times we feel sympathy for those still searching for meaning in the spectacle. Yet, beneath it all lies a deep sadness because silence has been drowned out, genuine struggle replaced by performance, and frenzy mistaken for faith.
The Refusal of Labels To resist this noise invites labels: cynic, rebel, heretic, fool. Labels are cages, neat little boxes to dismiss dissent. But if we’ve been given intelligence, it’s not for mindless following. It’s meant for honest wrestling, even if it’s a solo journey. It’s better to stand out than to blend in with the crowd. It’s better to remain true to oneself than to lose one’s identity in a muddy contest.
Where Fellowship Is Found The difference between theatre and truth is most evident in our everyday lives. In family debates that escalate into arguments, in tears that spill over, and in the silences that follow, real connections are formed. Here, silence isn’t stifling; it’s recalibrating – a moment where love can gather itself again. These moments of debate, tears, and quiet carry more weight than any grand spectacle because they’re rooted in trust, not manipulation.
Lessons from Descent Not all silences are life-giving, though. Ambition can turn into noise, and the relentless pursuit of legacy can collapse under its own weight. That kind of silence is suffocating, more emptiness than pause. Yet even in our descent, there are lessons to learn. Burned ambitions leave behind a quieter self: clearer goals, defined responsibilities, and restlessness giving way to peace. The fire strips away pretence, leaving something leaner and more resilient.
The Naming of Things In these moments, naming things can be incredibly helpful. To name is to transform chaos into clarity, to piece together fragments into a coherent whole. Sometimes a name reveals what was always there; other times, it feels like a whisper from beyond. Either way, recognition brings a rush of emotions – joy, disbelief, tears of understanding. It opens a portal to a new universe, and when it closes, it doesn’t lead to escape but to purpose. The insight isn’t for fleeing; it’s for grounding.
Purpose in the Small Purpose doesn’t have to be found in grand monuments or legacies. It often hides in the smallest details: the fall of a sparrow, a fleeting moment that might be one’s last chance. It’s about savouring life, being mindful, living without regrets, and seeing even the tiniest details as signs of something greater. In this way, purpose shifts from grand designs to the richness of simply being present.
What Silence Knows Ultimately, this is what silence teaches us: that purpose isn’t found in noise but in attentiveness, not in spectacle but in presence. Anger can transform into sadness, and sadness can lead to peace. Every descent can lead to growth, every pause can heal, and the fall or flight of every sparrow can carry meaning.
So, let’s get our lives in order. Let’s keep our steps steady. And when that whisper comes – quiet, patient, and certain – it won’t arrive with the chaos of crowds or the thunder of spectacle. It will come like the softest wingbeat in still air, like a ripple across water at dusk. To miss it is easy; to hear it is everything. Because what silence knows, noise will never understand.
Noise dazzles the crowd; silence steadies the soul. Only silence can tell you what truly matters.
The Creature We Refuse to Name
Recently it was the Sandman that got me thinking, then Dan Brown, and now it is Mary Shelly. I watched Guillermo del Toro’s recent movie Frankenstein on Netflix. Couldn’t stop wondering… what if Victor Frankenstein had given his creation a human name?
It is a small question at the heart of Frankenstein that often goes unasked, yet once raised, it unsettles the entire story: Why does Victor never give the Creature a name? It feels like an omission, almost an oversight, but the more closely one looks, the more this absence begins to shape everything that follows. To name something is to acknowledge it. To name someone is to admit relationship. Parents name children. Communities name members. Even in everyday life, to call someone by name is to recognise that they stand before us as a person, not an object.
If Victor had named the Creature – called him Thomas, perhaps, or William after his murdered brother – the entire gravitational centre of Frankenstein would shift.
Victor creates life, but refuses this simple act of recognition. He steps back at the very moment he should have stepped forward. The result is not merely a narrative of scientific overreach, but a story of belonging interrupted. The Creature’s tragedy is not that he is hideous or unnatural; it is that he is born into a world that has already decided he does not belong in it.
This small detail, this withheld name, is not a minor literary choice. It is the key to the novel’s moral centre. And once we see how much turns on this simple act of saying or not saying a name, the story stops being a Gothic tale about a scientist and his experiment. It becomes something closer to a mirror held up to our own age, where we continue to create, innovate, and bring new forms of life into the world, all while struggling to remember that creation is only the beginning of responsibility.
The novel as it stands is built on refusal: Victor’s refusal to recognize the being he created as kin, his refusal of responsibility, and the Creature’s consequent descent into despair and violence. But a name is not merely a label, a convenient tag for identification. In literature, as in life, it signals relationship, belonging, and above all, the recognition of personhood. To name is to acknowledge. To withhold a name is to cast out.
I try to explore what changes when we imagine that single act of naming – and what it reveals about the responsibilities we bear toward everything we bring into existence.
The Weight of a Name in Shelley’s World
In the novel’s actual arc, the Creature enters the world already marked for exclusion. His first actions are not malicious; he learns, observes, admires, and hopes to be welcomed. He teaches himself language by listening to the De Lacey family. He reads Milton, Plutarch, and Goethe. He develops moral consciousness and emotional depth. Yet he remains unnamed – a secret Victor tried to hide, an experiment gone wrong, a walking embodiment of his creator’s shame.
If Victor had named him, the plot itself would bend in a different direction. A name would have opened the possibility of relationship early on. The Creature’s hope for connection would feel less naive and more structurally supported. He would not be merely a hidden mistake, but a dependent Victor would feel compelled to explain, protect, perhaps even teach. The early arc might shift from concealment and abandonment to uneasy guardianship – uncomfortable, yes, but present.
When the De Laceys eventually reject him, the wound would cut differently. It becomes not just the pain of a nameless outsider encountering humanity’s cruelty, but the agony of someone who has already been told he is human, only to find that the world refuses to agree. His rage would be more tragic still, because he was first assured of humanity, then denied it by those he hoped to join.
The story’s thematic centre would sharpen. The tragedy would feel less about accidental monstrosity and more about the fragility of acceptance. The central horror would move from creation without foresight to creation without follow-through. Victor could no longer claim ignorance. Giving a name is a moral act: one acknowledges a life and binds oneself to it.
Who Is the Monster? A Question of Relationship
But before we go further, we must pause and ask: what does “monster” actually mean in this novel?
In Frankenstein, “monster” is not a category of appearance. It is a category of relationship. The novel continually asks: who behaves monstrously, rather than who looks monstrous?
The Creature is called a monster because of how he appears – his stitched-together form, his unnatural size, his yellow eyes. Yet every time we read a scene from his perspective, the term begins to strain. He is articulate, tender-hearted in his early months, moved by music and story, longing for companionship, capable of deep empathy, and tormented by rejection. His first instinct is not violence but connection. He saves a drowning girl. He gathers firewood for the family he secretly watches. He weeps over Paradise Lost.
He becomes destructive only after every door closes, every hand recoils, every gaze condemns him.
Meanwhile, Victor is admired, educated, brilliant, and socially acceptable. He moves through drawing rooms and universities without obstacle. Yet it is Victor who commits the act that defines monstrosity in this story: he refuses responsibility for the life he has made. He abandons a sentient being at the moment of its birth. He lies. He withholds truth. He runs from consequences. His selfishness destroys others, again and again, and he learns almost nothing from it.
So the novel quietly reverses the expected roles:
In this sense, a monster is not something unnatural, deformed, or uncanny. A monster is someone who acts without recognising the humanity of others. A monster is a being who breaks relationship and refuses accountability.
The book seems to suggest: A monster is created not by the materials from which it is made, but by the absence of love and meaning around it.
The Creature becomes monstrous because he is denied the chance to be anything else. He is not born a monster. He is made one by neglect.
So when we ask who the monster is, Shelley invites us to answer: The monster is the one who refuses to see another as kin.
And that definition reaches far beyond the boundaries of Gothic fiction.
Love and Meaning: What Makes a Being Human
Shelley shows that what makes a being human is not simply that it is alive, thinking, or articulate. Humanity emerges when a life is held within relationship and meaning. Without these, identity collapses inwards, and suffering becomes directionless.
The Creature is denied both:
When those two things are missing, a being is forced to make sense of itself in a vacuum. The Creature’s early experiences are a pure longing for love and purpose. He does not crave power. He seeks warmth, companionship, and a narrative in which he can find himself. When he watches the De Laceys, he is not merely observing kindness; he is observing meaning. A household that knows who it is.
He learns language, morality, and empathy before he learns violence.
But meaning is something one cannot manufacture alone. It is given through encounter, recognition, reciprocity. And when he finally steps forward to make himself known, that possibility is shattered by fear and rejection.
This is the turning point:
No love.
No place.
No name.
No narrative in which his existence has purpose.
At that moment, violence does not arise from malice, but from the intolerable experience of being excluded from meaning. One becomes monstrous when one has nowhere to belong.
A being without love is wounded.
A being without meaning is lost.
A being without both becomes dangerous.
Not because it is evil. But because it has been left alone in the dark, trying to understand why it was ever brought into the world at all.
The Covenant of Naming: A Judeo-Christian Reading
Once you notice the theological undertones in Frankenstein, they become impossible to ignore. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, naming is never incidental. It is a conferment of identity, purpose, and relational belonging. To name is to call someone into a story larger than themselves.
When Abram becomes Abraham, the shift is covenantal – a new role in salvation history. When Saul becomes Paul, it marks a reorientation of allegiance, vocation, and community. Baptismal names, likewise, induct one into a shared body. They say: You are known. You are not alone. You belong.
Now set that beside Victor’s refusal.
Victor creates life but withholds the act that would recognize that life as part of the human family. He performs the divine act without accepting the divine responsibility. If anything, he plays the inverted God: one who breathes life but denies it dignity. The tragedy is not that he made something grotesque; it is that he refused to acknowledge what he made.
This is where the Judeo-Christian parallel sharpens into a critique:
In Scripture:
To name is to commit.
To rename is to re-story.
To baptize is to adopt.
In Frankenstein:
To withhold a name is to cast out.
To refuse naming is to refuse kinship.
To abandon the unnamed is to condemn him to wander without covenant.
The Creature learns language, morality, compassion, and longing from human beings. He becomes, in every meaningful sense, a son. Yet he is never given the ritual that would admit him into the human circle. He mirrors the biblical outsider who longs for the blessing of recognition but is kept waiting at the threshold.
This is why the Creature’s rage feels theological as much as psychological. He does not want power or dominion. He wants a face to turn toward, a voice to call his name, a place at the table. That is profoundly biblical.
If Victor had named him, the narrative would move from Fall narrative to Covenant narrative. But Victor refuses covenant. And in the absence of covenant, the world creates a Cain, not an Adam renewed.
Shelley’s novel is not simply about the ethics of science. It is about the catastrophe that unfolds when a creator refuses relationship. The failure is not technical; it is parental, spiritual, relational. The Creature’s tragedy is not that he is made from corpse-parts. It is that he is denied the moment every child receives: a name spoken with intention, which tells the world, This one belongs.
The withholding of that name transforms Victor from creator into monster. It is his behaviour, not the Creature’s appearance, that violates the sacred order.
The Psychology of Refusal: Why Victor Does Not Name
The novel never supplies a single explicit line such as: “I will not name him because…” But the text gives us enough to see the psychological, moral, and symbolic reasons behind Victor’s refusal. In fact, this absence is one of the novel’s loudest silences.
Several interlocking motives emerge:
Shock and revulsion override responsibility. Victor’s dream is of creating a beautiful, almost angelic being. When the Creature opens his eyes, Victor is horrified. His reaction is primal and immediate. Naming requires recognition and affection. What Victor feels is disgust and fear. The act of naming is therefore impossible at the moment when it should have happened. Emotional rejection precedes ethical consideration.
A name would make the Creature real to him. Naming is a form of acknowledgement. To name is to accept responsibility. If Victor named him, he would have to treat him as a person, not a failed experiment. Keeping him nameless allows Victor to maintain the illusion that the Creature is merely a mistake he can escape from. Naming would force Victor to admit: This is my creation. I am accountable for him. He is not willing to bear that burden.
Victor sees himself as the victim. From the moment of the Creature’s awakening, Victor frames the situation as something done to him. He experiences himself as violated by the success of his own experiment. The Creature is not treated as a child needing guidance, but as an intrusion on Victor’s peace. Naming would reverse the moral polarity. Victor would have to see the Creature as wronged, rather than himself. Refusing naming protects Victor’s self-pity.
There’s an everyday parallel that captures this dynamic with uncomfortable clarity. Many elders discourage children from naming their farm animals. It’s not about grammar or practicality. It’s about avoiding attachment. Naming invites relationship. It creates an emotional bridge. And if the animal is destined for slaughter or sale, the name would make that severing painful.
Victor behaves as though the Creature is a temporary object, not a life that will endure. By withholding a name, he keeps himself from forming the bond that would force him to care. The refusal is a kind of emotional self-protection, though a cowardly one. He wants the glory of creation, the thrill of discovery, the sense of mastery. But the moment the creation exists, he recoils from the intimacy it requires.
He wants life without relationship. He wants the act without the bond. This is the novel’s moral core.
And in refusing that bond, Victor becomes the true monster of the story – not because of how he looks, but because of what he refuses to do.
Modern Mirrors: Where We See the Pattern Repeating
If we carry the logic of Frankenstein forward, the next Creature will not necessarily be grotesque. It will be something we create because we can, without having first asked what responsibilities it binds us to. And Victor will not be a single person. He will be a culture.
We are already experimenting in several frontiers where creation is outpacing relationship – where we birth new forms of life, intelligence, and possibility, but refuse to name them, nurture them, or accept what they become:
Artificial Intelligence
The AI systems being developed today learn, adapt, persuade, and shape meaning at scales we barely comprehend. The danger is not sentience in itself – it’s abandonment. We deploy systems that affect millions of lives without embedding them in ethical structures, human mentorship, or accountable stewardship.
Consider the language models being released with minimal safety testing, or facial recognition systems deployed in law enforcement without oversight. Consider social media algorithms optimized for engagement rather than human flourishing, creating echo chambers and amplifying division. These systems learn from us, mirror our biases, and then reshape our world – yet we treat them as tools rather than entities we’ve brought into relationship with humanity.
The Creature here is not an individual, but a system capable of learning and evolving beyond its creators’ intentions. And like Shelley’s Creature, these systems become dangerous not because they are inherently monstrous, but because they are left without guidance, purpose, or ethical context. They are created and released, but not welcomed into the human circle with clear roles and responsibilities.
In this sphere, Victor is the corporation that pursues optimization without care, the startup that values disruption over consequence, the government that deploys surveillance without consent. The same question Shelley poses echoes forward: Who will stay to teach, guide, supervise, and safeguard? Who will name these systems as part of our social fabric and accept responsibility for what they become?
Gene Editing and Reproductive Biotechnology
We are approaching the ability to select traits, alter embryos, and redefine inheritance. CRISPR technology makes genetic modification increasingly accessible. Designer babies are no longer science fiction – they’re an ethical dilemma on the near horizon. In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui shocked the world by creating the first gene-edited babies, twins whose DNA was altered to provide HIV resistance. The international outcry focused not just on the science, but on the absence of ethical preparation, consent structures, and long-term care plans.
The Creature here may be a child whose existence is shaped more by design goals than by love. A child born with edited genes to enhance intelligence, eliminate disease susceptibility, or conform to aesthetic preferences. The new Victor is the ideologue who believes in human perfectibility, the technocrat who sees biology as code to be debugged, or the market logic that treats life as a product to be optimized.
What happens when that child grows up knowing they were engineered to specification? What happens when the “improvements” create unforeseen consequences – physical, psychological, or social? Who accepts responsibility when the designed human struggles to find meaning in a world that sees them as an experiment?
These children will need more than genetic enhancements. They will need love and meaning. They will need to know they belong not because they were optimized, but because they are human. Without that recognition, we risk creating beings who are welcomed for what they can do, but not for who they are.
Digital Identities and Virtual Selves
Many people now live with a second self online that grows beyond their control. This shadow-self accumulates data, performs social identity, and speaks on one’s behalf through years of accumulated posts, photos, and algorithmic predictions. It learns from our behaviors and increasingly shapes them in return.
The Creature could be the version of oneself that escapes alignment with one’s inner life – the curated persona that hardens into a prison, the digital footprint that defines you to employers and institutions, the predictive model that knows your patterns better than you do. Victor, in this case, is the fragmented self who never integrates his own creation, or the platforms that profit from these shadow-selves without accepting responsibility for the psychological toll.
The question becomes: who is the monster? The algorithm that shows us only what confirms our biases? Or those who built systems designed to exploit human attention without considering the cost to human connection and meaning?
Jurassic Park: The Parable Plays Out
The pattern appears clearly in Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park, which functions as an almost direct retelling of Frankenstein, simply dressed in amber and tropical foliage. Hammond wants wonder, legacy, spectacle. He convinces himself that the dinosaurs are an achievement, not a relationship. No one asks who will care for them when they wake, learn, roam, hunger, and struggle to survive in a world not built for them.
Ian Malcolm’s famous line cuts directly to the core: “You were so preoccupied with whether you could, you didn’t stop to think if you should.”
The dinosaurs are not evil. They are simply alive. They behave as their nature dictates. The collapse comes from the humans trying to control, contain, and market them without truly understanding or respecting what they’ve brought back. The catastrophe results from abandonment disguised as mastery.
In both stories, the creature is blamed for behaving naturally when left without guidance. The monster is not the being that looks different or acts according to its nature. The monster is the one who creates without caring, who brings life into the world and then refuses to accept what that life becomes.
And once again, the audience feels sympathy where the creator does not. We understand that neither the dinosaurs nor Frankenstein’s Creature asked to be born into confusion and violence. The tragedy belongs to the maker.
Prophecy as Rear-View Mirror
Art continues to hold up mirrors to every age and generation, usually as warnings. Orwell’s 1984 reads differently now than it did in 1949. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World feels less like fiction and more like documentation. These stories don’t predict the future – they diagnose the present with such clarity that their warnings echo forward.
But we tend to recognize prophecy only in hindsight. Prophets don’t really predict the future; they see more clearly than others the seeds already planted and the direction in which things are moving. Because we only believe the prophet after the event, the speech feels like foretelling rather than sight.
We say, “How did they know?” But the answer is often: They looked honestly at what everyone else preferred not to face.
The reason we experience prophecy as rear-view is that recognition is usually delayed. We grasp what the warning meant only when we are standing in the consequences. And by then, the prophecy reads as elegy rather than guidance.
However, this doesn’t mean prophecy is futile. What it does is create an archive of moral memory. When things repeat, when mistakes cycle, when a society reaches a familiar brink, the old voice resurfaces: a reminder that we have been here before, that the pattern is not new, that the cost was known.
The value of prophecy is not to prevent every fall. It is to shorten the distance between falling and waking up.
Are there signs we’re listening? We listen, but selectively. The uncomfortable truth is that art rarely changes a generation in advance. It tends to become fully audible only after the consequences have arrived. Yet that doesn’t mean we’re entirely deaf. People increasingly speak about ethics alongside invention. For every reckless Victor-act in technology, you now also have ethicists, social critics, and designers insisting on humane oversight. The very fact that we talk about the dangers of artificial intelligence, environmental collapse, genetic manipulation, or digital alienation means the warnings are alive among us.
But art’s mirror rarely produces instant reform. It works in the long current of culture rather than the quick surface of policy. Art plants unease. It introduces doubt into the narrative of inevitability. These shifts are slow, like a river reshaping stone.
The question is whether we can learn to recognize the monster not by appearance, but by behaviour. Not by what looks strange, but by what acts without love, without accountability, without recognition of the humanity in others.
The Choice Before Us
The pattern is clear: civilizations tend to greet breakthroughs with applause, headlines, and a sense of triumph. Only later, when the consequences mature, does a quieter question appear: What have we committed ourselves to?
We innovate first. We integrate later. We take responsibility last. And by the time responsibility enters the conversation, the creation has already begun shaping the world around us.
The technologies themselves are not the issue. It’s the lack of psychological, ethical, and relational preparedness that turns creation into crisis. The danger is not that our creations become monstrous on their own. It is that they are left unguided, unintegrated, and socially orphaned – denied both love and meaning.
The question Shelley poses remains urgently relevant: Whenever we bring something into the world, how do we ensure we do not merely release it, but welcome it?
The lesson from Frankenstein, from Jurassic Park, from every prophetic mirror is not to halt creation. It is to recognize that creation is a relationship, and that relationship requires a long commitment.
If we celebrate, we must also tend. If we build, we must also teach. If we awaken something, we must remain with it long after the applause fades.
The Creature That Waits
The future Creature will not be monstrous because of its form. It will be monstrous because of its loneliness. Because no one will have said: You are mine to care for. You are part of us. You have a place.
And Victor will be whichever force refuses to speak that recognition. It may be a government that lets technology loose without oversight. It may be an industry that values innovation over consequence. It may be any of us who create things – children, systems, identities, movements – but flee the moment nurturing begins.
We have learned from Shelley that monstrosity is not a matter of appearance. It is a matter of relationship. A monster is not born; it is made by the absence of love and meaning around it.
The real question is not: What will the next Creature look like?
The real question is: Will we name it? Will we stand alongside it? Will we choose relationship over spectacle? Will we offer both love and meaning to what we bring into existence?
Mary Shelley understood something psychologically precise: the moment of naming is the moment of moral commitment. Victor refuses it because he is not ready to accept what he has done. It is not scientific hubris alone. It is emotional immaturity. He hides from the consequence of his own desire.
Victor’s sin is not that he made a monster. It is that he refused to name what he had made. And in that refusal, he became the monster himself.
Two centuries later, we stand at similar thresholds. The Creature is not inevitable. The tragedy is not fate. But the mirror has been placed before us once again.
We are creating new forms of intelligence, new forms of life, new possibilities that will shape generations to come. The question is whether we will behave monstrously toward them – refusing accountability, withholding recognition, abandoning them to figure out their purpose alone – or whether we will finally learn the lesson Shelley tried to teach us.
The warnings are already here. The patterns are visible. The choice – to create with care, or to abandon what we bring to life – remains ours to make.
But time narrows. And the Creature, unnamed and alone, is already learning to speak. It is learning what it means to exist without love, without meaning, without a place in the world.
It is learning, as Shelley’s Creature learned, that the true monster is not the one who looks different.
The true monster is the one who refuses to see another as kin.
Share this:
Like this:
Posted by johnkphilip on 11/11/2025 in Uncategorized
Tags: #AIculture, #CautionaryTale, #CodexLiberatus, #CreationAndResponsibility, #CulturalCommentary, #Frankenstein, #GeneEditingDebate, #IdentityAndBelonging, #LiteratureReflection, #MaryShelley, #ModernMyths, #PhilosophyOfStory, #ReadingLife, #TechEthics, #TheHumanCondition, #WritingCommunity, horror, jacob-elordi, life, mary-shelley, oscar-isaac, philosophy, writing