the creature

i've finished reading the story for the second time today it seems to me, even though the creature's revenge was influenced by mankind's ways and mankind's history, the creature is still a monster. the creature had the ability to refrain from murder, he even felt bad about what he was doing to other lives. just as mankind influenced his revenge and murderous temptations, why didn't mankind influence him to have faith in his god/creator (dr. frankenstein) ? this makes me reason with the idea that the creature was a monster from the get-go. the creature read "paradise lost", so he surely must have understood that all who claim revenge on their creator are damned. maybe i'm completely wrong here. -josh

well, I do think that the monster's neglected education is part of him turning evil. I am convinced, that the monster would not have turned evil if Victor had taken care of him and would have taught him right from wrong. The monster was confronted with something like moral at a rather late time of his life. Until that he had only bad experiences with mankind. The monster lacked a childhood where one normally learns of moral.
I also think that the lack of childhood is similar to a disturbed childhood which is often a reason for someone to turn out as a serial killer.

I think this brings up the very important question of whether or no the monster can be considered a "noble savage". On numerous occasions the monster can be seen as a compassionate individual who is simply misguided by society. Take for example near the end of the novel when the monster is seen bending over Frankenstein's deathbed. The monster demonstrates compassion and remorse. This brings up another important question about whether or not emotion is enstated in humans or learned? ie nature vs. nurture. I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts or ideas about the whole nature vs. nurture argument

Although mankind did shape the creature it was only done in a negative way. The creature is not like a normal human in the way that he did not have positive and negative experiences. All of the creatures experiences were negative, which caused him dismiss people in general. In a way the monster did not care about the lives of other people, because no one ever cared about him. Although the monster knows right from wrong, he never had any obligation to treat people fairly, since he was never treated fairly.

The monster is a character to pity. He is denied a childhood by Victor, who had an idyllic youth but did not value it. The creature has NO one who cares about him. He also has no intimate knowledge about God. When all else fails, people turn to prayer; the creature cannot. His creator is a mortal man who rejected him from the start. NO one listens to the creature or cares about him. Throughout the novel, Victor complains that he is the victim of fate and he is so wretched; not until moments before his death does he even to begin to admit that the carnage wrought by his creation might be his (Victor's) fault. Even then he doesn't hold that thought for long.

Every encounter that the creature has with humans is painful. People immediately reject him...so he rejects humanity. He wants Victor to feel the pain he has felt, so he picks off Victor's dearest one by one--until Victor and the creature are exactly alike--no friends, no one who cares, only revenge to give each a purpose for living. And after Victor dies, the creature has nothing left to live for. No one cares whether he lives or dies; the one man who did care is now gone, so he goes off to kill himself. Tragic.

Perhaps, the creature was a metaphor for the effects of industrialization and urbanization on modern humanity. Every day, I hear of cruel acts that people commit on each other. Children grow up in homes where they are abused and neglected; we are constantly bombared with advertising that makes us want thing that we neither need nor can afford. Mary Shelley's message was: society creates its own monsters.

It leads to a question: Does a person born as a good being or not? It is also seen in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde but I think it can also be included in Frankenstein.

You don't know if Frankenstein's creature is a monster (not physically) before his murders. I mean, you can't see that he is a bad "monster". The influence of the society and its rejection is what makes the Creature an evil. And of course the fact that Victor abandoned him.
I think Mary Shelley is critical with the society because she says taht what turns you to a bad person is the environment and the society of that period. But also the fact of being born or growing without a mother. I think that with this novel she says that to have a mother is essential and if you are born or you are abandoned you'll become a monster.

Right. We aren't, nor was the Creature, born good or evil. It is our actions that justify such classification. It is true also that society and the environment in which we live are large contributors to who we are/will become. I also believe the assessment concerning the Creature's childhood (or lack thereof) is true. Childhood is a time in which morality is first introduced. It is important therefore for a being to go through childhood first to have any understanding of what's right or wrong.

It is more than just an abusive childhood it was being alone. Being alone is one of the most destructive forces there is. The creature is alone and hated by everybody. He has no place to rest. A soul so totally alone will twist itself into an ugly form. Only compassion could have turned the creature but, none was found until it was too late - Robert - who at least listened. I don't know if any of any you have experience or can imagine such isolation but, it is truly horrible. I know I survived High School. This why the novel is so important to me. I had to fight this fight. I was lucky though I did have a good family.

PS Has anybody read East of Eden? At the end of second part three of the characters are talking about Cain and Abel. Lee in analyzing the story of Cain and Abel talks about how rejection leads to crime.

vengefulness is one of the most characteristic bits of mankind's nature... so the poor unnamed thing is actually very human..
and I throughoutly agree that being left alone, not even capable of a language (just by the way .. how do you think without a language?), and furthermore being shunned because of one's looks (a thing one has, up to a certain point, no possibility to alter) for which only one's creator is responsible, does really harm one's personality. sure, the poor thing could have refrained from it's revenge, but honestly can we expect anyone to bear such injustice, anguish and pain without any thought of revenge? certainly not, at least I could not. and I got horribly mad with our dear victor when I read the story. at first he works so desperately to make this thing come to life and then he decides he doesn't want it anymore... no that can't be. he was responsible for his work. if he didn't like it anymore he should have killed the poor thing right after it had opened its eyes! but running away from all responsibility proves him to be a bloody wretch actually not even worth the effort of revenge our nameless thing spent on him.
all right, I talk too much
just if it had not bin for his looks the so called creature would have bin a better human than most of us (better than me, that's for sure!)
so.. finished;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inbetween

just if it had not bin for his looks the so called creature would have bin a better human than most of us (better than me, that's for sure!)

---

Yes, if such a noble minded creature succumbed to vengeance, how would you or I have fared in his place?

Let's blame humanity and exonerate the creature?