How far is Frankenstein(TM)

Shelley tends to be suggesting that the creature’s voracious appetite for monstrosity and effectively evil is stimulated not by its nature but rather by humanity’s expulsion of the creature on the basis of its deformed and abnormal physiognomy.  The creature’s first instance of being judged by its physiognomy is when Felix “darted forward, and with supernatural force tore me from his father…he dashed me to the ground, and struck me violently with a stick”. In effect, Shelley attempts to suggest that it is not the creature who is evil in its nature, which is accentuated by the creature’s mercy towards Felix even though the creature could have torn Felix “to pieces”, but rather the society who is misguided by the belief in appearances and superficiality that suggests that a person’s appearance best describes its personality. Similarly, Charlotte Bronte explores the theme of charity being superficial as it was a means of making someone appear good in the Victorian Era. Shelley further consolidates her point through the character of De Lacy who judges the creature through its language as he believes that there’s “something sincere” in the creature’s voice. According to critic Peter Brooks, the creature is not evil as the creature is “impressed by the emotional effects of language…and Rousseau’s argument suggests that language springs from passion…what language first reveals to the Monster is human love.” This thus suggests that the creature can feel love when it is nurtured in affectionate and lovable conditions and likewise it can show malice and destruction when it is treated inhumanely, which suggests that humanity’s outward perceptions are misguided and evil.

Shelley attempts to suggest that Viktor’s selfish pursuit of knowledge and narcissism are evil in the sense that Victor chooses to devoid the creature of happiness by destroying its companion on the condition that it may cause evil and eradicate the race of man, which is simply an excuse for Viktor’s failure to create someone “beautiful” and distinguish himself as an outstanding scientist. Viktor denied the creature his moment of happiness when “with trembling passion, he tore to pieces the thing on which he was engaged” but the creature responds to Viktor’s action with wretchedness and vengeance by saying that it will “make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you…I will watch with a wiliness of a snake, that I may sting with its venom”. Shelley thus implies that Viktor is evil as he essentially denies the creature of love and a companion, which is not an action of a “creator”, a father, especially when the power of creating happiness is within his reach. However, since the creature is seen like a “monster” by everyone and instead of receiving love, it receives hatred, it sees no point in life and therefore attempts to make Viktor’s life wretchedness and despair and teach him a lesson of how it. Shelley employs a gothic element of nature by portraying the creature as a snake that can be harmless if it is undisturbed and can instantly poison when approached. Shelley thus suggests that since Frankenstein devoided nature, represented by the creature, of its basic liberties and in consequence the nature retaliates with an uncontrollable force by murdering Elizabeth. This in turn contributes to the idea that playing God has severe consequences.

In conclusion, Shelley explores the question of evil in ‘Frankenstein’ through the figure of Victor and him playing God to suggest that it is evil to challenge God and such an action has ramifications on one’s physical as well as mental state. Shelley provides an indictment into the society and its misguided norm of judging the creature by its appearance and finally accentuates that selfish pursuit of knowledge for one’s own cause is evil in the sense that it had negative consequences on Frankenstein’s social life as well as his spiritual and mental instability.