Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
The monsters attempts fail. When he tries to befriend blind De Lacey, his son Felix, takes it as if the monster is trying to hurt the old man, and with “supernatural force tore” (134) the monster away from his father. Although, the monster could have “torn him limb from limb” (134) his “heart sunk” (134). The monster realized that he will never be accepted by anyone due to his appearance, and how could anyone accept him when his own creator abandoned him. The monster is all alone. At this point he seeks revenge, revenge upon Victor that “cast him abroad an object for the scorn and horror of mankind” (138) and rightfully so.
When the monster saves a girl from drowning, instead of people showing him gratitude he is shot and wounded, his “reward of my benevolence… the miserable pain of a wound” (140). Why should he continue to be kind to humans, when every encounter he had with them were horrific, and all due to his appearance. It is no surprise that the monster turned from good to evil after everything he endured. He adapted to the elements he was surrounded with, not by choice. The monster is an outsider of his abnormality, isolated from society.
All he wants is someone to talk to, a friend, and thus, asks Victor to “make him happy” (145) by creating a companion of opposite sex, as “hideous” (145) as he is. Victor agreed to fulfill his wishes but, in the end, he changes his mind and destroys it, leaving the first monster alone, yet again. He robs the monster hope of a companion, in doing so provokes him. Victor’s justification that the monster might be “more malignant than her mate” (164) sounded more like an excuse to abort his work. He was well aware what his actions might lead to, Henry’s and Elizabeth’s death (which they ultimately did).
The monster warned Victor that he will be with Victor on his wedding night (167). However, Victor brushes it off as if the monster was threatening his life. He was so self-centered that if he paid closer attention to the monsters threats he would have realized that he was not referring to Victor but, to Elizabeth when he said “Shall each man, find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone? ” (166). Victor is wrapped around his own self-pity, feeling sorry for Elizabeth when she finds, “her lover so barbarously snatched from her” (167).
He doesn’t feel sorry for Elizabeth, his sorrow is for himself. Victor is left to anticipate his death. One is quick to judge the unfortunate monster that is left to fend for itself. Alone, abandoned, lonely and loveless, thriving for one tiny bit of human attention and acceptance from anyone. You may argue that the killer deserved no less. However, do not be hasty in your judgment of the ill-fated creature who was abandoned by his hypocritical creator for the sole reason of not being pleasing to the eye. The mind of the creator, Victor, proved to be quite shallow.
He did not take time to assess true worth of his creation, to see what is valuable under the unsightly exterior. So what if the monster was not appealing enough? The monster was intelligent, patient and in need of love and company. The monster was not picky of whose company that may be. He is willing to talk to anyone who would stand the sight of him, but no one did. A killer whose hand was “forced” to kill by his creator who did not take responsibility to train his creation, teach him right from wrong – educate him.
One can argue that Victor Frankenstein didn’t kill anyone therefore is less of a monster. If you take into consideration that he deserted his so called “first born”, he might as well have killed the monster and saved him years of misery, sorrow, humiliation, loneliness and abandonment. Think of it this way; in the eyes of the dragon St. George, it must have looked as the biggest monster, but, under the circumstances, opinion of the poor creature counts for very little. We don’t seem to care for the dragon anymore than we care for a poorly created monster.
Do we not then blame the creation more than we blame the creator who is greedy, self-centered, self-indulgent, self-gratifying, conceited, egoistical and selfish to no end? Victor, the creator, is not a killer but he may as well been. His actions lead to many innocent lives. Victor never tried to rectify his behavior towards the monster, even after the first death occurred. Victor just took the death as his punishment. He didn’t stop the second killing, third nor fourth. It was Victor’s sole responsibility to care for the creature. Even if you still argue that the monster was the one committing murders, admitted that was his only sin.
The monster had not thought of the meaning of “thou shall not kill”. Can you argue that the creator’s greed for power was any less deadly of the sin than the one of his creation? Victor’s pride which prevented him from accepting the monster was also the reason that instigated his need for monsters creation. All Victor had ever done was for his own prestige and glory that served himself with total disregard of others. With all the killings the monster had committed, you still find sympathy for the poor creature. At least he is regretful and remorseful for his actions.
The monster confessed his sins and wept in his self-realization, “even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation, I am alone” (218). We find the sympathy to forgive the unfortunate monster for the fear that perhaps, heaven forbid, one day we would end up alone. Works Cited Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Ed. Karen Karbiener. New York: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2003. ?? ?? ?? ?? Show preview only The above preview is unformatted text This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Mary Shelley section.