On the other hand, if one were to take a romantic view of the Creature (as many a modern reader may) seeing him as the innocent child, whose innocence has been lost as a result of the world into which he has been cast. One may perhaps consider that his new found malevolence as opposed to his original benevolence, has come into being as a result of his own treatment by the human characters in the novel, he is hated and abhorred so of course he will seek vengeance against those who have made him suffer, as he says “misery made me a fiend.” A modern reader may be particularly sympathetic to this view, as in the modern world we have a greater understanding of the criminal mind. Although any crime (especially murder) is by no means excusable, it is only recently we have truly come to understand, that people may commit terrible atrocities purely as a result of circumstance, unstable childhood being a common cause of mentally unbalanced adulthood which may lead to a life of violent crime or murder. The Creature, as we see has had a particularly poor upbringing, spurned by his creator (or father) and abhorred by all whom he met, one may ask what could he do but reciprocate those feelings?
However, the Creature further incriminates himself as a malignant being with his reaction to his murder of William, as he exclaims, “I gazed on my victim, and my heart swelled with exultation and hellish triumph;” This reaction we must surely perceive as one of “unparalleled barbarity.” The creature continues to portray himself as a being of great evil as he moves to incriminate, and as a result indirectly cause the death of, Justine. And finally he murders the innocent Elizabeth.
The Creature also reveals numerous endearing qualities within the play which may lead any reader to feel at least some degree of sympathy for the Creature. The major reason being the Rousseauan idea of the ‘noble savage.’ The idea being man in primitive society is more noble than modern urban man corrupted by civilization. The Creature as we see in the novel is intrinsically a benevolent and good Creature, born with the benevolent intention of a rational sentient human being. We see this through his acts of kindness such as saving a drowning child and replenishing the wood store of the De Lacey’s. One may also consider his self-educated eloquence as something to be admired, like the people of Baile Beag in Brian Friel’s Translations the Creature “expend[s] on [his] vocabulary and syntax acquisitive energy energies and ostentations entirely lacking in [his] material life”.
On the other hand, the Creature, despite his eloquence, may also be shown to be evil through his own admissions, as his horrific threats would, without a shadow of a doubt, “curdle the blood” of Frankenstein. The Creature threatens Frankenstein, that he will, “Glut the maw of death with the blood of your remaining friends.” And “Be with you on your wedding night.” Even he himself admits “I am a wretch, I have murdered the lovely and the helpless; I have strangles the innocent as they slept and grasped to death his throat who never injured me r any other living thing” Moreover, the Creature also draws parallel’s with himself and the most evil of all beings Satan as he says, “Evil thenceforth became my good”, similar to Satan’s admission after the fall (in Paradise Lost) “all good to me is lost;/Evil be thou my good”, however, this parallel show the Creature not to be ‘a fiend of unparalleled barbarity’, rather a fiend of great barbarity.
However, the use of the word “barbarity” in the question opens up another case for the defence of the Creature, as is quoted from Ovid in Brian Friel’s Translations “Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intelligor ulli:” which translates as “I am a barbarian in this place because I am not understood by anyone.” If we take Ovid’s classification of a barbarian, as someone who is misunderstood or not understood, then perhaps the Creature is the greatest barbarian of all. Created into a 19th century society, which is known to have been extremely fearful and abhorrent towards outsiders or any who are different, a modern reader may find himself extremely sympathetic with the Creature’s plight. In Shelley’s book she clearly shows the negative attitudes many had towards those who are different or unfamiliar in her novel. One may recall Frankenstein’s less than hospitable reception on his arrival in Ireland, or Shelley’s clearly racist attitude towards Safia’s father and the whole of Muslim society through its portrayal in her book, this compounded with the malignant treatment the Creature receives from every human he meets leaves the reader with a great feel of pity for the Creature. Perhaps this is felt more so by the modern reader, as we now live in a multicultural society and are used to accepting outsider. As a result of this, coupled with an increased understanding of different cultures we now generally find the idea of racial prejudice appalling. Not so perhaps for the reader of 1831, who would have regarded racism against Islam, and particularly the Turks as something which was socially acceptable, this prohibiting from any form of empathy with the Creature.
In conclusion, despite the Creature’s clearly appalling actions throughout the novel, I assert that these perhaps may be a result of the environment into which the Creature is created, just like a child born into an unstable and abusive household may often grow into an unstable and abusive person the Creature “born” into an abhorrent, un-accepting, unforgiving and violent world becomes abhorrent and violent himself, acting only the way others have acted towards him, with the utmost hate and unjustifiable violence, and it is because (I believe) the Creature is only a result of the environment into which he is created, a product of nurture as opposed to nature, that many modern readers sympathise with him.
