Frankenstein question

Victor's monster was a product of his environment. Victor's reaction to him once he brought him to life and his subsequent fear and loathing of the creature, made the creature what he was. In fact, if Victor would have just acquiesced to the creature's demands for a mate, things would have turned out much differently.

I think that the creature was fully human in his capacity to do both good and evil. His being unloved by his creator, having been abandoned to life without any tutelage or caring, drove him to his acts. He is responsible, and yet Victor Frankenstein is also responsible for the created man's actions.

Just my two cents.

Frankenstein is one of the greatest books I've ever read. I think Mary Shelley was trying to make a couple of points with the creature. First there is the question of parenting. Victor abandons the monster, his "child", and it grows up to be a monster. I think it should be noted that its not by nature wicked. In many ways he is naive and gentle until he is rejected by his maker and the people at the hut. Personally I think Mary meant this both at a personal/literal level and as a metaphor for society at the time. Mind you, when he does go bad, he goes very bad and becomes a murderer with no problems with killing children just to cause problems for his maker.
However, the most direct parallel, drawn by Shelley herself in a quote on the preface of the first edition and in the story, is with Satan as portrayed by Milton in Paradise Lost. This takes us into very deep religious territory. The thing is, by drawing a comparison between teh creature and Satan, you can't get much more "evil" than that. Milton's Satan, however, is a slightly different kettle of fish.
I guess what I'm trying to say in the midst of all this waffle is "Loved the book (one of my favourites), can't really make up my mind if the creature is evil or not".

I think that the monster was unloved, and as a result did not know how to do so, and thus murdered people thinking this was love. It is a wonder then that he/she/it has such a developed sense of language. The monster has clearly gone through a warped learning process, but has not been shown love. What if Victor had shown him some sort of compassion?

The creator was the evil and in all actuality the monster. The creature merely became a reflection of Frankenstein. The sadness of the story was the innocence in the creature who knew nothing and was taught nothing. This can be used as an example of nature versus nurture in that the creature could be compared to a newborn with absolutely zero idea of life and all it's pitfalls. Without the love he craved he became the very thing Victor always was. The tragedy in this is that the creature literally could have gone either way had Frankenstein only given it an ounce of love and affection. He himself was what we would call a psychopath in that he neither felt love nor compassion for a single person around him, least of all himself. So the question becomes more about the creator than the creature in that if you feel nothing how can you give anything?

I agree with unloved!! He was treated with nothing but hatred (by Victor, but all the people he comes across, by the (presumed father) of the drowing girl he tried to save, by the De Lacey's to whom he was nothing but kind (although they don't actually know that, but still)... All his good efforts are met with scorn and hatred, so what else is he supposed to do?

Amazing book though. So much better and deeper than any movie version.

He was just unloved. If someone had just cared about him and tried to be a friend to him an if they had just looked past his appearance, then he might not have done some of the things that he did.

Frankenstein's creation was unloved, Mary Shelly made me wonder who the true monster was in Frankenstein. Just because a man has the knowledge and power to create something what seemed unimaginable doesn't necessary mean he should create such a thing. What was an exciting and brilliant experiment in the beginning really turned out to be a disaster with only Victor to blame. The monster was a victim. His killings were wrong but they were a desperate attempt for attention.

I think he was unloved because Victor never love the creature. So the creature just reflected what Victor really was. Victor always was looking for a scape goat and very selfish throughout the whole book. I mean Victor never named the creature so that shows you how much he care about it.

Frankenstein is a great piece of work. Something so marvellous and way ahead of its time.

We create our own monsters and demons.

Unloved. The creature just looked miserable to me. "Evil" people in this world are made so by those people who refused to provide them another way.

I don't even like calling him a monster because really, he wasn't until he chose to be a monster himself. Definitely unloved and not evil. That's what makes the book so sad.

There was no place in the world for him and no one wanted him. Sad really. I don't blame him for lashing out at his creator.

Definately just not loved enough. His goal wasn't even to harm the people he did, at first. I mean, imagine being brought into this world and being abandoned.

Frankenstein... It was okay, I understand why it is a classic but Victor drove me mad!!! He would take 20 words to say he was depressed or suicidal, when 2 would do!

Just in case anyone is interested in further readings, Shelley's mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, and father, William Godwin, each wrote extensively about the prevalent theme in "Frankenstein": Otherness. After reading Wollstonecraft's "Maria, Or The Wrongs of Woman" and Godwin's "Caleb Williams," there will be no doubt as to where Shelley received much of her inspiration for "Frankenstein."

I enjoyed very much this book. All this time I thought Frankenstein was «the monster» it came as a surprise to me when I read it and realized that Frankenstein was the creator… I must see the movie.
Now, back on topic, I don’t think the-creature-without-a-proper-name was evil. I think its personality and its way of thinking and behaving was just an effect of his sad life. The way he was treated made him feel like he was… not even worthless? He thought himself as a creature of nothing, even worst than that, he thought he didn’t belong to the world because he was different and that was not only sad, but incredibly disdainful. I don’t believe the creature was evil – I mean, if we think about it, he couldn’t have been evil, he was just a ‘new born’ in a way or another and he lacked education. His creator, Frankenstein, did not care about him and did not show him any love, any affection, he has shown him only hatred and flout. As a conclusion, he has become what he has become.
The fact is that not only Frankenstein is at fault – even though he is the one who is the guiltiest in everything that has happened, but also people in general that would not accept someone who is different. I suppose that’s what the book is about… about human behaviour, in the end, not only the fact that Frankenstein played ‘God’ but also the fact that people are …people and they are not as beautiful as we think they are. The creature was ugly, of course, he looked like a monster, and then he looked like a monster inside himself as well, after he was shown what people can do and behave. So in the end what I think is that the creature was not evil – he was just the product, the conclusion of human beahaviour and of Frankenstein’s way of treating the…poor fellow.

The monster was not evil, it was just unloved. He was never given a name, he saw his creator's repulsion and disgust, and he was abused because of his appearance. I totally understand why the monster did what it did, not that I justify him killing innocent people.

Unloved... If Frankenstein had have just made him a girlfriend he'd have saved so much depression... haha

I feel like the result of his being unloved turned him evil, in a way. If he had been loved he would not have become evil, but because he was unloved, he became evil.

I second what David said. For me, the book was a great Metaphor for what happens to the unloved child, especially when society compounds the situation with rejection and cruel treatment of that child.