Comparing Victor And The Monster In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

The text finally uses the interaction between Victor and the Monster to display the similarities of their misfortunes, but then completely contrasts the two characters, leading readers to create a larger conclusion about the text. At the end of the Monster’s life story he demands a companion emphasizing Victor’s role in his misfortunes: “Instead of threatening, I am contest to reason with you. I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind? You, my creator, would tear me to pieces, and triumph… and would not call it murder” (104). The texts ironically portrays the Monster as the responsible figure attempting to change his future contrasting him to the human who refuses to participate in a self-determined change of fate. Due to the fact that the Monster is dependent on a human creator, no decision he makes can ultimately change the fate of his misfortune. Victor on the other hand not only has the choice of the Monster’s happiness in his hands, but also his own fate. By displaying the Monsters inability to change his destiny, the text emphasizes the
The text’s parallel ideas about the consequence of knowledge, for both Victor and the Monster, opens the discussion to suggest the similarities of both characters personal choices. On the other hand, the text strongly differentiates the Monster who as a product of faulty human design, was forced into a decisive fate, whereas Victor’s fate is a product of his decisions, no matter where he attempts to place the blame. The similarities of the character’s misfortunes, based on their knowledge, and their differences in responsibility emphasize the text’s overall claim to stress the importance of personal choice in determination of one’s fate and ultimately leaves readers with an apparent idea of the human capability of a self-imposed