Frankenstein question

I'd say, unloved. He was such a wonderfully intelligent creation. Very sweet and caring, but world is a cruel place for such an innocent mind. More so when your creator hates and abandons you to the wolves.

In my opinion, Frankenstein was the true monster. He was neglectful, selfish, whiny. Good God, when I read the book I just wanted to beat the crap out of him. His stupidity caused at least 4 people to die. Though the creation was the one who struck the death blow on all of them, Frankenstein drove him to it.

Both. It was born innocent, and was abused, abandoned, and unloved. It was mistreated by all encountered, and even when it did the right thing it was treated badly. It was made evil by the treatment it received from everyone, but it still made an active decision to become wicked, and he acknowledges that saying he can never change. He is pitiful, and you feel terrible for him, but that doesn't make his actions any less wicked.

I think it is clear that Mary meant for the monsters "evil" actions to be the direct consequence of neglect. What I think gets overlooked mch of the time is that to an extent, Victor was a victim of similar circumstances. Mary Shelly makes it a point to tell us that up until medical school, Victor is self educated. He, like his monster is a product of a unguided mind. It is noteworthy also that the captain of the artic bound ship is also described as a self educated man.

Well, you can look at this story as a fairy tale, which I am inclined to do. In that case, the monster is evil born of the arrogance of men who toy with powers reserved for God (or nature, or whoever you worship). Frankenstein shrank from the monster because he realized with horror what he had done. Whether the monster killed because he wanted to be loved is immaterial. As an unholy creation he was evil incarnate, unlovable, and therefore killed inevitably.

The second way to look at it is the way most of the people here seem to be looking at it, as a Freudian allegory of some sort, where all of the monster's actions have psychological causes. You should remember that Shelley wrote before Freud, and certainly wouldn't have thought of the story that way. In any case, I would say that being unloved does not make someone a ruthless killer. I agree with Nicole: if the monster was a real person, he'd be a classic sociopath.

Frankenstein doesn't take responsibility for his creation. Instead of raising him, and teaching him how to live in society, he abandons him, leaving him to fend for himself in the world. I don't see Frankenstein as evil, just irresponsible. The monster did not start out any more evil then did anyone else, just strong and without guidance. Imagine a two year old with the strength of a grown man. The monster reaches out and gets his hand slapped. He responds like a 2 year old might, but with the body of an exceptionally strong adult.

You must read this book by Mary Shelley. In all the Frankenstein movies I ever saw, the monster was never depicted the correct way. I was so totally surprised by this story and the book ending. I am so glad that I decided to read it because all my questions were answered and so many people were like me believing what they saw in the movies and didn't know the story. I loved it.

A being reveals its true nature when it is wronged. Under favorable conditions all react favorably. But under trying conditions, "evil" repays with evil, and "good" seeks to redeem.

unloved, duh. he didnt do the things to people just because he wanted too, he was hurt and full of emotions and didnt know what was right or wrong. Maybe if Frankenstein treated him with love, instead of running away scared, he wouldve been a 'good monster'

when I was readin the monster's chapters while he is telling his story I have to say my heart was broken.. he was monster on the outside but from the inside he was so pure and innocent ... he made me want to cry cause all he ever wanted was love and a companion :(
so I agree with the unloved

My thoughts, as well. The monster was created with good intent by Victor. But once Victor saw what he had done, he discarded the idea and the creation. This is what happens when we do not think beoynd the immediate need and glorication. Evil is not born, rather it is nourished by ignorance, isolation and indifference.

Unloved and misunderstood. I think the perception of the monster that we grew up with is a total misrepresentation of what the actual character is about. It is very misleading and you understand why when you read the novel.

Unloved. The depravity of his love and affection lead to horrid circumstances, that I'm sure any human being would find themselves in, had they been in the monster's place. Evil does not exist in this book, not in Victor, not in anyone. The impalpable human condition is expressed.

I don't believe in evil nor do I really think anyone does anymore. When you read a story of a child in a healthy environment who has done something terrible do you think to yourself that child must have evil in them ? Unlikely. Instead the majority of people would probably label that child with a mental illness. However I agree with the "product of environment" crowd on this one.
Frankenstein's creation by his account responded to the world imitative of his own experiences involving other people. Those people of course reacted to him in the extreme causing him to act in the same manner towards his creator.
In my opinion Mary Shelley's intention was to go beyond the then-conventional stories about monsters born out of evil and instead create one molded by man. So if her intention was for man to literally create a physical monster it's only fitting that man would be responsible for his horrifying actions as well.

. . . a life is not found solely in the flesh or by the willing of it to rise . . .

https://www.facebook.com/FireOnTheWat...

The book was totally ineffable ! But I must agree on that Doctor Frankenstein's monster was unloved and that brought out the evil of him !

I think he was merely reflecting how he was being treated :) The readers do not sympathise with the monster until they hear his perspective and I think even though it was part of the monsters nature to kill... there was this probability of teaching him the right values! This comes to the nature and nurture debate! Would the monster still be a monster even after he was loved because it's in his nature? Or would he have been different if he was treated differently! For me it was the second statement :)

I think this is a book about loneliness. The heart of it is how the creature experiences his utter expulsion from the world of people. His isolation in the cottage, only able to participate in the world of others without their knowledge, is an amazingly prescient vision of how outcasts now live, with the TV replacing the hole in the wall. His is a forced psychopathy, with his suffering creating the right conditions for it, whereas Victor's appears to be innate, or maybe engendered by his privileged upbringing. As for love, even the unloved can persist more or less peaceably, but the creature is more than unloved, he is despised and sees that others are being loved. Again, in the cottage, he learns that it is not normal to be despised and not necessary to be unloved. (Some of his insights come from reading literature that reflects his sorrows.) That is when he senses the injustice of what's been done to him and can no longer suffer quietly.

unloved. i actually felt for Frankenstein. this book is one of my all time favs and is much deeper than one would expect.

Even if everyone loved him he would have turned bad eventually. That was in his nature as a tragic book character.

I'd say Frankenstein's creation was unloved, rejected, and lonely and that's why he turned evil.

I think it was both. All the monster wanted was somebody to look past his flaws and love him for who he was and had a gentle heart, but at the same time, he knew what he was doing was wrong and intentionally did this to hurt someone, which is to me the true definition of evil.

I believe the Creature's accelerated 'infancy' meant he was simply reflecting the attitudes of his influences in much the same way a regular child will, much in the ways observed by psychologists such as Bowlby.
Victor's rejection of his creation can only have fostered dysfunction, and the Creature absorbs the benevolence of the De Laceys. In fact, the Creature pretty well sums it up when he says ‘…if my first introduction to humanity had been made by a young soldier, burning for glory and slaughter, I should have been imbued with different sensations’

While in film adaptions it is often seen the monster is depicted differently than the novel and that is bothersome, however, that is not to say the monster was not evil. The rage that ensued after abandonment could only be managed by an evil mind. Yes he was an unwilling ugly creation exposed to the world, but this is a man who killed as a result of his anger and vengeance. I also believe Frankenstein to be evil as well and it is fitting that the feud of rage ensues between the two, Creator and spawn. You can't make an excuse for the monster's behavior once pained, I say evil.

It felt like The Elephant Man...he was scorned, mocked and basically driven away because of what he looked like and I can totally understand why he chose to kill Victor's girlfriend because he couldn't quite grasp life in gentrel and all he has ever been was treated cruelly so he decided to kill someone that was very dear to Victor so basically I pity the monster much more than Victor himself. Adam needs much more pity in the end.

the idea behind it was - well not evil - but unethical. However, the "monster" is parallel to real life. How society - the govt - will demonize certain groups/race/ nationalities in order to justify their demise either by warfare or other means.

Unloved, if his creator had given him at least a little bit of affection, I bet Frankenstein wouldn't have done half the things he did or become a monster.

Been unloved can drive a person to do unbelievable things...

The two are one and the same.

my conclusion is short: hate and evil are the results of absence of love.

Unloved. It's like one of those nurture vs. nature situations.

I believe him to definitely be unloved, mistreated, and misunderstood. I could totally sympathyze with the character originally created in the novel. The films tend to misrepresent his true nature. He's a product of rejection- rejected by his creator & rejected by society.

I never felt sorry for the monster. He was unloved, so what? Being unloved doesn't justify doing the things he did. He knew right from wrong, but still killed all of Frankenstein's family and friends and kept doing it until Frankenstein himself was dead, then suddenly felt sorry. The monster was amoral. He knew what he was doing was wrong when he was doing it and still continued to do horrible things. On the other hand, however, I didn't feel sorry for Frankenstein either. It wasn't completely his fault the monster was evil, but he could have taken certain measures to stop the monster. This book really pissed me off. It justifies excuses. No one really owned up to what they did.

Unloved, and awakened to a cruel world.

The mistreatment clearly turned the monster IMO, so I would vote unloved. The book is one of my favorites because it hits so many notes so easily, most everything I see in it has been covered by others above so I won't repeat what has been said.

This post is completed for a school assignment. The consensus among readers and literary critics is that the monster’s violence developed from the neglect, hatred, and discrimination it experienced from the humans whom it initially admired and showed compassion to. Among the guiltiest of these people was Victor Frankenstein, who created the monster and who was thunderstruck by its hideousness when he galvanized it into creation in his hasty and obsessive attempt to create life. However, I also disagree with those who state that the monster’s murders resulted entirely from apathy and abuse from the humans who ostracized based on their first witness of its decaying flesh. Frankenstein created the monster, but he also unknowingly gave it his passion and his capacity for hatred. True, the monster was wrongly driven away by the farmers it helped the drowning girl it rescued, but only from these two instances of seeing its strength wasted on ungratified humans, it killed Frankenstein’s brother when the child threatened it. When its creator destroyed his incomplete female monster, the first monster murdered Frankenstein’s friend and later Frankenstein’s wife because it could not bear to inflict physical wound on its creator. There were many parallels between the monster and Frankenstein and I feel that whatever we say of one, we must also first compare that person’s qualities to the other, and although the monster did not possess any satisfaction in causing heartbreak for Frankenstein, it did not possess some evil

I don't believe that the monster was pure evil, or at least evil wasn't his nature at first. He was "different", everyone was getting scared upon seeing him. He was lonely, he wanted to feel things, but he didn't have an object of affection, or a friend. There wasn't a chance for him to have a friend, because the way he was created made that impossible. So, I believe that he was disappointed from a life that he was sentenced to live, without his own will.

I guess you could say both. You could say evil because, he murdered a few people. You could also say unloved because, he was loathed by everyone he met. The only person who reacted differently was a blind man.

One created the other. The creature was left to develop on his own without any positive influences. The result was a monster.

Bitterness is a very human emotion, and bitterness is often a natural reaction to repeated rejection. I think it's a great commentary on society...about how someone can be turned cruel and evil by a lack of love and acceptance, how if he had been given a single break at any point, lives might have been saved. He might have been a monster in appearance, but his actions were mosterously human.

Unloved. He didn't even have a name!!!! Can you imagine not having a name? That means no one EVER calls you, no one needs you, nor loves you, nor thinks of you... that's hard. Frankenstein (its father), run in horror when he realized what he had done, and left the creature (Mary Shelly never calls it 'monster') alone, frightened and desolate. Everywhere it goes, it receives denial, abhorrence and hostility, so it becomes unable to love... it once loved its father (Frankenstein) but then turned into a revenge quest against human race, and against Frankenstein. When I read this book, I cried a lot, I suffered for the creature and reflected about our own cruelty as species.

The creature in itself is symbolic of Satan. His casted away and abandoned and later the creature looks for vengeance. This is understood from the intertexuality of the novel, there is a reference to Milton's Paradise Lost. If any ones read it I would like to get their feedback on the book. Paradise Lost is about how Satan was casted away from Gods kingdom and it put Satan in an empathic spotlight. Like the creature in Frankenstein your inclined to feel sorry for Satan in the novel. Is the Creature evil or unloved? I don't know, maybe we should think deeper beyond our emotions and think of the underlying philosophical messages in the novel.

Ashleigh wrote: "Was the monster that Victor Frankenstein created evil or was he simply reflecting the way that he had be treated, without love?"
I think 'unloved' is too much of a cliche. Isolated. Unaccepted. Ignored. Abhorred.
It led him to loathe society... to protest.
Mary Shelley does emphasize the true values of human society of the Victorian, and modern, time period (in case there even has been a change). Appearance undoubtedly plays a large role in human attitudes.

This story touches on so many modern themes such as personal responsibility and the ethics of scientific experimentation.
Frankenstein himself was a monster in the way he treated his creation and I see him as most to blame for the consequences.
However from the way The Monster spoke he didn't not seem totally soulless or without conscience, he knew what he was doing was wrong but was so filled with loneliness, anger and hatred he lost control.
So although I feel he deserves our compassion and understanding I do not feel he can be totally exonerated from blame for his violent actions.
Not all abused children turn into sociopathic serial murders.

The Creature became evil because he was mistreated by other people. He needed love and companionship. The creature is a metaphor for many of our criminals. We, society, create monsters.

Society rejects & demonizes what it does not understand--what it doesn't WANT to understand. The creature's shaped by his experiences--the blank slate which becomes polluted by the evils of society--therefore, I agree with David & Vanessa. Victor had an opportunity to help the creature but squandered it. He play's God, becomes a "father" & rejects his "child".

I expected to believe what you have all said but the more I read, I just couldn't shake the feeling that the monster was more of a sociopath than anything. I felt like he was a mimic who uses eloquent speech to try to manipulate his master. I feel incredibly cynical for feeling that way but it is what it is.

He was made, but as soon as he saw the world, the world hated him. All he wanted to be was loved, and then he was discarded like an old boot. The world hated him, so he learned to hate the world.

Every time I see a cheesy Frankenstein toy/costume/novelty, I puke.

I think it was unloved.

And even if we are taught since children on nothing is as it seems or not criticized a book by its cover, we can get foolish and be lead by appearances.

I don't think that the monster was evil at least at the beginning. He learned what he was taught. He was unloved and because the only thing he experienced was rejection and neglect he realized that it might be better to be feared than loved. And that is exactly what he exploited to the greatest extent.

When the creation is spurned by the creator, it apparently goes apeshit. I think that Shelley was using the relationship between Victor and the creation to parallel man's relationship to his creator, which, in Shelley's time, was God. With this book, I think Shelley is both criticizing and humanizing God. She criticizes him by equating him with Victor, who is an easy character to condemn for creating something that he could not control. She humanizes him by showing that Victor had good intentions. Perhaps God had good intentions in his creation, but soon found his creation to be out of his control. I think that this novel questions the omnipotence of the Victorian era's God, and thus makes him a more sympathetic character.

Was the "monster" created with a clean slate? If so, then the cruel, rejected treatment by the world greatly impacts his horrific behavior. Yet, he is also inherently "born" with certain features and characteristics that are unique only to himself and therefore become a basis for his own characterization - his intelligence, strength, feelings, reasoning. I think the best question is not whether the creation was good or evil, but was Victor, the creator, right to create in the first place? He was forever haunted by his own creation, yet where does the responsibility transfer from the creator to the created? To broaden that question, when does society need to take blame for creating the problems that plague people, and when is it the victim of individual evil? I think the hardest idea to swallow maybe how the monster was the worst and best of Victor Frankenstein.