IOP conclusion over Frankenstein and the "contamination" of the monster's heart. How do I do this?
How should I conclude my IOP (my IOP is about the contamination of Frankenstein's monster's heart)? I need to what I'm trying to reveal.
In a conclusion, one needs to "retie the bow." That is, if you think of the thesis as a bow that is untied revealing the contents of thought about the topic with a general statement and its main points, then the conclusion ties together again these main points and restates the thesis. Voila! a retied bow.
Regarding the discussions and questions posed by you on the creature and how it is society that contaminates him, you will then wish to return to your notes and the responses to your questions and find the major points in these. Thus, you may formulate a conclusion that contains these points:
- Mary Shelley's monstrous creature in Frankenstein is a virtuous innocent, or "natural man" to use the terms of the Romantics, until he is confronted by what Marc Antony in Julius Caesar calls "the evil that men do."
- The exposure to a society in which he is treated with repulsion and cruelty and made to compare himself with others causes him to learn to hate out of his fear of rejection.
- No longer does the creature posses the necessary self-love, the amour de soi, that is need for any creature to have compassion for others.
- Out of this "unwarranted fear," the creature's heart is contaminated by society, and he commits evil deeds until he ultimately destroys himself by a purging fire.
Take these points and condense them some, putting them into parallel structures and end with a "clincher," a thought that leaves the reader with an observation based upon your concluding thought. For instance, Shelley's Frankenstein creature is only a monster when the monstrously evil heart of man contaminates it.
Given that I am aware of the Frankenstein project (based upon the fact I have read your previous questions and discussion board postings), I would suggest that the conclusion of you IOP restate your conclusion based upon the contamination of the monster's heart.
Given that I do not know the exact angle you are taking, since it is not stated, I would assume that you are either stating that his "contaminated" heart is the result of either innate evil or the wrongs done to him by both society and Victor.
Therefore, I would suggest that (in your restating) you illustrate the justifications which you made throughout the IOP. If you have taken the position that the monster's contamination was a result of society, justify the stand by reminding your audience about how the monster was treated. You could even leave your audience with the question: "How would you react if....?"
On the other hand, if you are taking the stand that the monster's contamination is a result of innate evil, you would remind your audience about the justifications you had previously made. Final closing could, again, provide your audience with a closing question. The question could look something like this: "Do you think that you would have acted any different if you were simply born evil?"