Horrible.

As with any "child", by instinct, Victor's creation reached out to his "father", immediately when he was brought to life. What was victor's reaction? He ran in terror. That was the first act of rejection "Junior" experienced and a little later on, he was rejected once again when he entered Victor's bedroom and tried to approach him. <br>So, Junior found his way outside and had to learn to fend for himself in the wilderness. What happened the next time he made contact with humans? He saved a child from drowning and when he took her to the village he was attacked and driven off! That's 3 rejections. The next time he tried contact, with the old blind Mr. Delacey, was a success, simply because the old man was blind. If Junior had had enough time to explain his situation fully to the patriarch before the rest of the family returned, perhaps the old man might have been able to convince them Junior was a well meaning (if damned ugly) soul, and he would have finally been accepted! But then that would have made for a different story entirely! Instead he was once again driven away, BUT STILL bore no ill feelings towards humans, for his situation. What finally turned him for the worse was discovering the family had moved to escape him. <br>What happened next? He captured William, whom he intended to keep as a companion because he assumed the boy was too young to have internalized the prejudices of adults. William, of course was enraged as well as terrified and let slip that he was Victor's brother, and Junior snapped! Here he was confronted with a smaller version of his Creator and this one was also rejecting him, and threatening his freedom too!<br> When he finally caught up to Victor on the glacier, he tried too make the man understand how utter rejection by society felt and how it twisted a person's mind. He demanded that Victor make him a female counterpart so that he would have at least one person in all the world with whom he could socialize, but Victor after first agreeing, changed his mind. My Heaven! Victor finally grabbed a brain and realized that creating monsters was not a good idea, for all parties involved. Amazing. However, in backing out of the deal, he sealed his and his wife's fates. DUH! What an idiot! specially considering Junior told him point blank that he would take all his joy from him and make him just as lonely and bitter as he was!<br><br>So, Chris, tell me where and how you feel that Victor was NOT the cause of all of the monster's woes and the initiator of Junior's transformation from a "noble savage" to a murderer? <br>Btw, childhood neglect and abuse are VERY common defences in criminal trials these days.<br>

So what? Having a hard life justifies you murdering innocents? Is there a justification for murder? Are you the type of person to stalk a lover if they reject you?<br><br>No, sorry, I don't feel any sympathy for the monster.<br><br>I don't necessarily feel sympathy for Frankenstein either, it was his creation. <br><br>However I do feel sympathy for all of the other people the beast killed, those are the true victims, not the monster, not Frankenstein. And really, how can you not forgive Frankenstein for his mistakes? He realized what he had done was wrong and he was sorry, yet still he was forced to keep paying for it.<br><br>You can defend the monster, you can say they drove him to it, you can say he didn't know what he was doing. Who cares? A rabid dog doesn't know what it is doing and you still have to kill it. <br><br>

I dont care about this stuff. Come on people, does it really matter that a book does not show the tragic whatever....<br><br>I know i sound stupid but, its just a good book, and a compelling story. You dont have to analyse everyting, why not read for pure enjoyment?<br><br>I can see this is where ill find all the fake critics I need...

This is one of the most horrible books I've read.<br><br>Frankenstein is supposed to be a tragedy where the real victim is Frankenstein's monster and the real villian is Dr. Frankenstein, however Shelley completely fails to pull off this moralistic theme.<br><br>Instead we're asked to feel sorry for a murderous and vengeful creature that attempts to beg for our sympathy even as it kills innocents, again and again.<br><br>I would not recommend this book to anyone, other than Mary Shelley, let her read the monster she created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlie

I dont care about this stuff. Come on people, does it really matter that a book does not show the tragic whatever....<br><br>I know i sound stupid but, its just a good book, and a compelling story. You dont have to analyse everyting, why not read for pure enjoyment?<br><br>I can see this is where ill find all the fake critics I need...

---

Analyzing literature allows us to examine ourselves and gain a greater understanding of the world. And just because you are satisfied with a superficial knowledge of a book doesnt mean you have the right to tell others that they should be satisfied as well.

And, i also think that it is Frankenstien, and not his monster, that is to blame. He does take the childish stance and run away, leaving his creation to its own devices.

It's hard to make sense of the story of Frankenstein, because you think about the Creature, and then you see the man Frankenstein himself, and then you try to decide who the bad guy in all of it is. I think that one of the things that Mary Shelley was trying to say was that you can't play God and create a living person with emotions and instincts and then reject it without repercussions. She was saying that people are made evil by the people around them. Nobody is born evil, it's the environment that makes you act the way you do.

In effect, Victor's mistake was that he believed that he could make a man artificially, which of course won't work if you abandon and reject it. The creature's first experiences were of rejection and hurt, so naturally, he feels like it's him against the world.

The truth is, I loved this book to bits when I read it, because you can feel pity for both the creature and it's creator. There is reason to feel sorry for both of them, and also reason to be against them. That's one of the things that made this book so enjoyable, that Shelley didn't just make them flat, 2-d characters. You saw both sides of the character, which helps you make the decision about who you think is the real villain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

However I do feel sympathy for all of the other people the beast killed, those are the true victims, not the monster, not Frankenstein. And really, how can you not forgive Frankenstein for his mistakes? He realized what he had done was wrong and he was sorry, yet still he was forced to keep paying for it.

---

I personally feel very sorry for Victor Frankenstein. He had to watch every single person he cared about die, and know that in many ways it was all his fault. I think maybe having to watch all those you care about die is worse than actually dying yourself.

Perhaps Victor did run away from his creation, but how do you know any other human being wouldn't do the same? The fact that he has created another life is shocking and really terrifying in a certain sense. He shouldn't have left, but it wasn't something that he did out of pure malice.

I felt sorry for the creature at first, but I agree that there is no excuse for murdering the innocent. I have more pity for Victor than his creature, no matter what Shelly's intentions.

These are old posts, but I read them wondering whether anyone would pick up on the romantic life of Mr. and Mrs. Shelley. Many have said that any woman who lived with Percy would have every right to create Frankenstein. It's been many, many years since I have read about Shelley and company, but I seem to recall he was a dreamer of the sort who was dangerous company indeed. Women loved him, but he left them with little—maybe something like a dealer in a Leonard Cohen song.

All these people died young, as I understand, except for William Wordsworth. I suppose romantic inclinations, too, tend to die young. I think our Frankenstein readers may have overlooked some intriguing clues to the strange, strange story they read. Oh, and wasn't Mary the only member of that little group to complete her story?

dude ok victor deserves absolutely NO sympathy!!! i mean hel-freakin-lo! he created all of his problems!!! he went away to skool, he stayed in solitude, and then he freakin created a human being!!! i mean come on!!! he is totally responsible for the monster's rampages!!! if he would have taken responsibility in the first place and just helped the monster adjust or something this probably wouldnt even have been a problem!!! i mean the monster tried to make friends and just have someone who would help him and because victor wanted a "super human" or w/e he totally created something no one could ever relate to or love. so yeah i totally sympathize with the monster!!!

Quote:

---

Women loved him, but he left them with little—maybe something like a dealer in a Leonard Cohen song.

---

Yes! Exactly.

i agree, i think that the monster should be sympathised. i know what it is like to be constantly hated and can see things from his point of view. :banana:
ha ha stoopid banana.

It's been a while since I've read Frankenstein...but I remember feeling sympathy for both the monster and Victor. I don't know how anyone can feel no sympathy for Victor. Yes, he made a mistake, but I don't that's a reason not to feel any sympathy for him.

I've just gone back to reading Shelley: The Pursuit after having a break from it for a while. I've just read the bit about Mary Shelley's inspiration for Frankenstein, and it does hint that (Percy Bysshe) Shelley was the inspiration for Frankenstein...as well as the monster?

Well, both of these characters should be sympathized about. Victor, loses is entire family, all that he loved, and even his own life. However, the monster created and then rejected by his own creator. That's like having a god create you, then shun you away like a daemon. I for one, did not have sympathy for Victor. He created the man, then MADE it into a monster. This creature was intelligent, kind, gentle. But as a famous quote goes, "If I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear." by the creation himself.

I think that to begin with, a certain amount of sympathy is due to both Victor and the monster, although both prove themselves unworthy of this further on in the story. It is acceptable that Victor made a mistake in his creation of the monster, and that shock caused him to reject it the first time, however, he had a duty to teach the creature morals. The lack of a positive role model possibly played an important role in the creature becoming a monster, but the fact it shows it is aware of the immorality of what it is doing proves it too is unworthy of sympathy. To begin with, both characters are perfectly acceptable and worthy of uncritical judgement, but both prove they don't deserve this later on. The story shows each of them transform from innocent, respectable people to unloved monsters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lozenge121

I think that to begin with, a certain amount of sympathy is due to both Victor and the monster.

---

The point that bothers me is when Justine is on trial and Victor doesn't say a peep. And why? -- because he thinks he'd feel embarrassed to tell such a story, and they will accuse him of being a tall-tale teller. So, he lets Justine just pay the price for his silence and wallows in how bad he feels about it. That's not very manly.