I believe that Shelley is trying to make a comment about family and how a bad upbringing is a major factor in creating someone or something that could be classed as a monster. At the very beginning of it’s life the creation’s only “family member” is his creator and almost father, victor Frankenstein. The very first thing the creation receives from it’s family is rejection. Is Shelley trying to justify the creature’s actions by showing it’s lack of a loving mother and a disciplinary father could have sculpted him into the person that is willing to commit murder?
If we are to read this book and analyse the characters at the basic level of appearance alone then the creation is truly a monster, standing eight foot tall and described “A mummy again endued with animation could not be so hideous as that wretch!” Ignoring his physical attributes and looking into the mind of the creature we can see some very human emotions and complex ways of thinking, often staying more level headed and reasonable than he whom gave him life and calls him wretch. For example the crimes he has committed considering his “up bringing” and the current circumstances are hardly one of a monster, murder is never justifiable, but being rejected by the rest of mankind seems an almost adequate excuse. Victor on the other hand acted incredibly carelessly, by creating what the world will arguably never be ready for. To then cower in fear at the sight of his creation was not the action of a professional scientist. Neither of these offences really justifies the name monster.
Right from the moment of it’s formation Frankenstein’s creation is completely alienated. Is Shelley trying to portray his later actions as being acceptable due to this? There is only so much that can be learnt on moral issues through books alone, when completely by himself Frankenstein’s creation has nobody to learn about right from wrong he is left to make up his own mind on what is acceptable behaviour. Also considering that the only humans he has come into contact with have rejected him based solely on his appearance, surely what little moral boundaries he decides will be reflective of the alienation and malice he has experienced in his life.
In the nineteenth century people had very old-fashioned role on woman’s role in life the belief was that their purpose was to be mothers. After Victor has “successfully” created life from cadavers he suffers a disturbing nightmare, which depicts his future wife Elizabeth transform into his dead mother. I believe this dream has a deeper meaning, by creating a way of producing life without the need of sexual reproduction he is getting rid of the need for a mother. So Elizabeth has no purpose any more.
Nobody who talks to Frankenstein’s creation tries to judge him based on anything more than his physical appearance and due to his grotesque appearance which doesn’t fit into society properly, he is lead to believe that he is less than human like he is worth less. After suffering all this prejudice for his awkward appearance surely in time it is inevitable that he will com eto despise the society which rejected him.
Victor Frankenstein is obviously a very devoted worker but I think Shelly tries to portray him as often being over zealous. Someone who is willing to sit in charnel houses and crypts stealing body parts is evidently devoted to tier cause, in addition this could be construed as a monstrous act. Grave robbing is certainly not a healthy habit!
Frankenstein’s creature doesn’t act like a stereotypical monster; after teaching himself to read, in the hope that the De Lacey family will accept him, he becomes articulate and intelligent. In a discussion with his creator he remains eloquent and calm. He is able to reason and see the many sides of an argument. This is something many civilised humans fail to do in daily situations. To be rejected by everyone whom he meets causes him great pain, this pain then escalates and becomes anger towards those who despise him. Maybe how to deal with this anger was something he failed to learn with the absence of a mentor, but surely then the blame would fall to Victor for abandoning him.
Throughout the novel Frankenstein’s creation is constantly referred to as a wretch or daemon. Thanks to this constant name-calling we get the impression that Shelley would like us to believe that the creation is all of these things. The vile description of the creature’s abnormal appearance definitely helps to characterise it as a monster. Some of the language used by the creature is actually quite terrifying and though it is spoken masterfully in proper English this is just cloaking the monstrous threats being conveyed clearly with evil intent. The description of the place the monster dwells in as being baron and desolate helps to make him sound like more of a monster, as his home is reflective of his personality. This could be especially true for the cold harsh mountains which he roams, the fact that he can survive there alone makes him suited for being a monster or a wild beast. Is this Shelley trying to classify the creature’s mental stability based on it’s harsh surroundings?
We must also definitely consider whether the creature’s intelligence makes him more or less of a monster. Because we see the creature as becoming quite intelligent then we tend to use this as a reason to describe it as not being a monster but considering it has the mental capacity to understand the quality of life for the victim surely this would make his actions more monstrous. The creature is obviously intelligent, possibly more so than his creator. It is this ability that could condemn him to the title monster. Also when the creature makes malicious threats towards Victor, though they are worded to perfection and a good example of his vast vocabulary, they still remain brutally hateful “I will work at your destruction, nor finish until I desolate your heart, so that you will curse the hour of your birth.” He poses far greater a threat with a brain to match his incredible brawn.
We strongly get the picture that Shelly wanted us to view the creature as a monster by the use of religious references to his creation being un-natural. This would probably not have the same effect in a modern novel but in 19th century something being anti-religious would have definitely helped to characterise it as a monster but in the same way would the making of this creature not be a blasphemous act in itself?
When the creature tells his story we are obviously meant to feel sympathy, something rarely felt for monsters. He goes on to recount a short life filled with rejection and hardships, also he ability to gain brief moments of happiness from such irrelevant things as making a fire for the first time. The thing we seem to too easily forget is that Frankenstein's creation is just like a big deformed child.
In such circumstances and in such a severe state of depression due to feeling unwanted and unloved by everyone he meets, it is my belief that many people would commit murder whether or not it makes them a monster is not conclusive but at least the creature tries to justify his actions rather than becoming a complete barbarian.
In conclusion the real monster in my opinion is Frankenstein’s creation. I have made this decision not based on his appearance but because murder is an unjustifiable sin, anyone committing such a crime is therefore a monster. Furthermore Frankenstein’s monsters explanation for his violent crimes doesn’t make them any less violent or wrong, It just shows he knew what he was doing.
