hmmmm

[Emma]

Surely it's not just a gory story! Dont you think it comes under the whole 'ideological state apparatus', i.e showing people what is good and bad via books instead of them being repressed by society-policemen etc. No-one likes to be told what to do and so they read the consequences of meddling with nature and learn from it. (i learned this in uni last year!) It also addresses society and parenting. You see, if the creature had been raised to know what is good and bad he would not have killed people would he? How does he know he is doing something bad if he has never been taught it? I dont agree that people turn out bad just cos they were treated bad as kids, i never can quite understand when, (for example) child abusers are arrested then they get to court and the lawyers and psychologists make the excuse that they were abused as children so that is why they committed the act. It just doesnt make sense! If they knew it was wrong and hated it so much when they were young, why do it to others? anyway, i've gone off the point a bit here.........<br>You have to ask..... if society had just accepted the creature would he have killed the people? Even if Frankenstein had still hated him and ignored him??? All he wants is to be loved and he kills people for attention. He makes Frankenstein follow him not because he wants him to die, but that he wants the attention of being followed.<br>Hmmm... just some thoughts anyway, any more ideas?<br>

[Prem]

that's deep
you said something really clever without realising it
look up determinism
it's a philosophical issue which you inadvertedly mentioned

[meredith_w20]

In response to your societal question:

Of course he would have acted differently! The only reason he became so vindictive and "cruel" is because of Victor's abandonment and also the revulsion of the deLaceys. All the monster wished for was acceptance, and without that he became, however cliche, a monster.

[Zippy]

I believe we're all a product of our environment and I think Shelley illustrated this in Frankenstein. I think your right to point out that a bad environment doesn't excuse anyone for bad behaviour in later life. The creature's abandonment, while terrible for the creature, does not mitigate the murders it commits. However, we have to bare in mind that this is a gothic novel, and as such, we expect a fair amount of darkness. Also, it simply wouldn't have had the impact it had without the creature going on the murdering rampage.

It has to be said that Frankenstein is not one of my favourite novels. I think it's fairly badly written in some places and parts of the plot are frankly ridiculous. However, it is one of the most interesting novels I have read. There are depths to the story, various layers that become more interesting as you learn more. For instance, some critics have claimed that Frankenstein (The 1818 text) is in fact a ‘horror story of Maternity’ and that Mary Shelley’s fear of childbirth (a dangerous process in those days, one which her own mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, succumbed to while giving birth to Shelley) spawned the tale. Throughout the novel characters are left parentless – Caroline Beaufort’s father dies leaving her ‘an orphan and a beggar’ and Elizabeth Lavenza also becomes ‘an orphan and a beggar’ and, of course, the ‘birth’ of the creature leads to the eventual death of it’s creator.

One of the most fascinating facts concerns Shelley’s depiction of the character of William in the novel. In July 1814, Mary was pregnant by Percy Shelley. She went off to Europe with him and in February 1815 gave birth prematurely to a daughter who lived for only twelve days. In January 1816 she gave birth to a son, William. In June 1816 she began Frankenstein and fell pregnant once again, before finally completing the novel in May 1817. When she was writing Frankenstein, her son, William, was in the tenderest stage of development. Five months of age, the child was well looked after by Mary and Percy. Yet, in Frankenstein Mary introduces a baby boy, calls him William, describes him identically to how she describes her own son in some of her letters, and then lets Frankenstein’s monster murder the boy in a woodland by strangling. I find this shocking. Shelley had already suffered the death of her first child. For her to describe the death of her second in such a manner, beggars belief, and calls into question her psychological-soundness during this period.

This is really the tip-of-the-iceberg when it comes to Frankenstein, a remarkable novel that reveals more the more you read it.

[Thespian]

It also addresses society and parenting. You see, if the creature had been raised to know what is good and bad he would not have killed people would he? How does he know he is doing something bad if he has never been taught it? I dont agree that people turn out bad just cos they were treated bad as kids, i never can quite understand when, (for example) child abusers are arrested then they get to court and the lawyers and psychologists make the excuse that they were abused as children so that is why they committed the act. It just doesnt make sense! If they knew it was wrong and hated it so much when they were young, why do it to others? anyway, i've gone off the point a bit here.........<br>You have to ask..... if society had just accepted the creature would he have killed the people? Even if Frankenstein had still hated him and ignored him??? All he wants is to be loved and he kills people for attention. He makes Frankenstein follow him not because he wants him to die, but that he wants the attention of being followed.<br>Hmmm... just some thoughts anyway, any more ideas?<br>

The Nature vs Nurture debate is seen throughout the book. You make the point that if Frankenstein's monster had been taught right from wrong he would not have committed murder, but Victor himself is raised within a loving family 'the most distinguished of that republic' he is educated and advised by his father, he says how his first recollection are that of his 'mother's tender caresses' and 'father's smile of benevolent pleasure while regarding me' and yet having been nutured within this environment he digs up dead bodies and creates a monster...surely he would have seen something morally wrong with that?! And yet he decided to do it, and almost does it for a second time! Surely this raises the question that even if Victor had attempted to educate and show the monster right from wrong, it may still have chosen the same course of murder.

[JessBooks]

The Nature vs Nurture debate is seen throughout the book. You make the point that if Frankenstein's monster had been taught right from wrong he would not have committed murder, but Victor himself is raised within a loving family 'the most distinguished of that republic' he is educated and advised by his father, he says how his first recollection are that of his 'mother's tender caresses' and 'father's smile of benevolent pleasure while regarding me' and yet having been nutured within this environment he digs up dead bodies and creates a monster...surely he would have seen something morally wrong with that?! And yet he decided to do it, and almost does it for a second time! Surely this raises the question that even if Victor had attempted to educate and show the monster right from wrong, it may still have chosen the same course of murder.

But Victor Frankenstein *does* see the moral implications, even if it's for the wrong reasons, which surely is why he couldn't complete the Daemon's female counterpart...even while he is creating the Daemon he has moments where he realises that what he is doing is unhealthy and wrong: "and often did my human nature turn with loathing from my occupation" (Vol 1, Chapter 4)

[pandora]

Frankenstein is one of my favorites.Its narration, style..etc.It consists many many sub-topics inside.Parenting is one of them.Biblical references..etc.
Victor Frankenstein is the creator of the monster.But only God has this unique feature:creation.But Victor does not obey the rules of nature, he followed the rules of science.Science vs nature.
On the other hand Victor is a father after creating the monster.He mus thave educated, fed...the monster.But he does not.That's why monster accepts Satan as an ideal symbol for himself, not Adam.Because God protected Adam but Victor did not.
It is the nature that made the monster an evil character in the novel.