Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
He uses imagery to give examples for how he felt, like when he says ‘I crept from my kennel’ as though he was a disgraced dog, and treated like an animal. At this point, the reader may have changed their views about the creation, but Frankenstein certainly hasn’t. He knows about how well spoken the monster is and thinks of it as a trick, to lure people into keeping him company. He says to Robert Walton that the creature is ‘eloquent and persuasive, and once his words had a power over my heart; but trust him not’. Frankenstein still believes the creature is to blame.
When Walton sees the creature for the first time, he believes what Frankenstein told him on his deathbed. He says ‘I beheld a vision so horrible as his face, of such loathsome yet appalling hideousness’. It shows the reader how the monster’s appearance somehow overshadows the beauty of its speech. Finally, Shelley uses some archaic language to show the historical context of the book. She uses the word ‘deamon’ when Frankenstein refers to the monster and this spelling of the word is no longer used. Shelley chose this word to describe the creature because it has connotations of the devil and evil ways.
This links in with Shelley’s society and religion because everyone was religious and using the word ‘deamon’ would show just how much hate Frankenstein had for his monster. Frankenstein, by using this particular word for the creature, shows how he feels that he is the innocent one. When the monster speaks, his language is very fluent, smooth and flowing which links in well with the Romantic Movement, which was very much around at the time, the book was written. The structure of the book is very interesting as it starts at the end, then goes back in time to explain the story.
This gives the reader a chance to hear Frankenstein’s side of the story as he tells it to Robert Walton. The first part of the book is written as epistolary. This means it is written as a form of letters put together into a story. First, there are letters from Robert Walton to his sister Margaret. These letters make it clear that he has an obsession, much like Frankenstein’s, about reaching the North Pole. He then mentions that he has met a stranger, and goes on to inform Margaret of Frankenstein’s story. We hear Frankenstein’s story, right up to where he reaches Walton’s ship, and then it continues in the form of epistolary.
The structure is very interesting, because Walton writes about his own story to Margaret and his story includes Frankenstein’s story which also includes the creature’s story. So Walton who is writing to his sister (and the audience) communicates all three stories in his letters. The narrative structure is very clever, because I think the same end would have happened to Walton if Frankenstein hadn’t have come along and informed him of the dangers of obsessions, it would have ruined his life, as the creation of the monster ruined Frankenstein’s.
It was obviously morally wrong of Frankenstein to devote his life to his obsession, where his life was perfect before this fixation with natural philosophy. He ‘shunned’ his friends, and if he had not done this to create the monster, they would not have all been killed. There are many points where the reader does not know whether he was morally wrong or not, and the best example of this is when he decides to make the creature. It would have been morally wrong to unnaturally create life in the 19th century, but there is more leeway today as there are so many different views on genetic engineering.
Taken as a whole, I think that Victor Frankenstein was morally reprehensible. Even in the 21st century, where the creation of life is more frequent, I think it was morally wrong to take body parts from dead people. I think he should have realised the terrible consequences of his actions before he went ahead with the creation. He did so much research into natural philosophy and he should have realised from his study that he needed to learn from other people’s experiences. His obsession with being the first got in the way of him thinking straight. I think Frankenstein leaving the monster to fend for himself was also morally wrong.
All human beings are cared for once they are born, so leaving the monster alone is suggesting that he isn’t human and doesn’t deserve to be treated as one. As the creature was often out in the open, this gave him a chance to be shunned and discriminated against by society which introduced the feelings of hatred and aggression which were used later on to destroy Frankenstein’s happiness. Frankenstein is really responsible, because if he were not so obsessed with natural philosophy and the death of his mother, he would never have developed a passion for saving life and would never have discovered that creating life was possible.
He only had himself to blame for the destruction caused by the creature; not only to himself but to those he loved. Frankenstein never really admitted the responsibility, he said that God gave him the power, ‘I found such astonishing power placed upon my hands, I hesitated a long time concerning the manner in which I should employ it’ and though he did take a long time to think about what to do, he reached never realised the full outcome of his decision.
Although he realised his mistake at the end, and tried to put someone off making the same one, he never admitted the responsibility out loud. So, in conclusion to the title, I’d say that Victor Frankenstein is a very morally reprehensible character. 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.