Frankenstein Frankenstein question

Should Frankenstein have created the Monster?
Alethea Chaney Alethea Jan 21, 2015 05:37PM
Besides the fact that the Monster killed people, was it right for Frankenstein to create the monster?

When you create life you are obligated to love and nurture it. Victor was not a mommy.

So, then, really Frankenstein is not a novel about hubris, but an early 19th-century treatise on the importance of birth control. Well, considering Mary Shelley's feminist bent, I'll buy that. Could be the start of a brilliant thesis.

While some see this as a cautionary tale of meddling with "things man was not meant to know," I think it has more to do with reaching too far, too quickly, and failing to take responsibility for one's actions.

The death and tragedy of the story largely arise out of Frankenstein's rejection of his creation and too-late realization that he has a responsibility for and obligation to his creation.

So, in theory, I see nothing wrong with the experiment. The flaws are in the man.

It seemed to me that Victor himself was the
cold-hearted monster. He builds this creation without considering its possibilities for its life and then upset as he should be. I was shocked that he did not speak up and take responsibility for Justine's death. And the monster he created had feelings that he didn't want to acknowledge. You wouldn't ignore a pet and leave it alone like he did with his creation. So no he should not have created the monster. But it did make for a great story.

The monster wasn't made with intent of bringing back to life a particular deceased human being though. He created an entirely new creature from alchemy and other often debunked scientific ideas using I can't remember discarded human remains? So noble intention to eliminate death quickly turned to fervent desire to craft new life even if the experiment were to help him in future endeavors into saving lives.

NO, it wasn't just irresponsible of Frankenstein to do that, but selfish especially when the monster didn't turn out exactly the way HE wanted it. It's like he was a wining little boy who begged and begged for a puppy and then, when he finally gets the puppy and it bites him for the first time he's done with it. Victor had no right to play God with another being.

Hey Waidaminnit... He made Boris Karloff's career by creating the monster - How can that be a bad thing?

Well, he did it because he could. The thing is, it was wrong of him to leave his creation to run off and fend for itself. He should've taught it what being human means, instead of falling into a nervous fever and letting his creation out of sight.
It's, in its own way, a tale of abuse through neglet which lead to murder.

V Mar 19, 2015 06:47AM   0 votes
I actually wrote my college thesis on this topic... It includes this type of argument for Frankenstein, Jekyll & Hyde, and The Picture of Dorian Gray. It's published online and you can probably find it if you Google "What Makes a Monster and What Makes a Man." I discuss a lot of the info in the comments you make!

Of course not. But Mary Shelley needed a story, so.

Incidentally you should edit the thread so it's not a "discussion."

I also think that Victor's was treated unfairly (and really Victor was more of a "monster"), but what I think even MORE interesting is the fact that everyone I've heard from about this book, here and elsewhere, think that Victor is at fault. So how did those movie producers decide to turn Victor's neglected and rejected creation into Frankenstein's crazed and murderous monster???

Dramapuppy I refuse to watch the movies, but I assume they just turned it all around and dehumanized the monster.
Feb 10, 2015 04:24PM · flag

The science aside, I have always seen the book as the story of a father rejecting his "child", then trying to make up for it and facing up to his responsibilities too late. The repercussions of his willingness to abandon his creation are far reaching and out of his control.

Looking past the veneer of the story of a man creating a monster, rather it should be viewed as the monster constantly being made in every man. Every man is daily building that monster that will one day break out, and is constantly in the shadows lurking and waiting for its opportunity to jump out and take over the man's life.

Should the good doctor have made the monster? Or should each man ensure that the parts of the monster are never found, assembled, and animated?

We all have our secrets, our quirks, our things we keep our own, these can easily be our monsters, or pieces of them, and should be addressed before we find ourselves feeling the eyes of the being upon us while in our daily interactions!

J Jan 28, 2015 12:44PM   0 votes
I think Frankenstein's motivation for wanting to create life was twisted, and therefore he should not have done it. When you create life you are obligated to love and nurture it. Victor was not a mommy. He was a mad scientist.

V Rosenberger Victor's initial motivation wasn't to create life but to preserve it. To protect people from things like accident and disease... ultimately that morph ...more
Mar 19, 2015 06:44AM · flag

back to top