Frankenstein Nature Vs Nurture Essay
The development of a human is debated by either nature or nurture. It is argued that intelligence, behaviour, feelings and personality are either inherited by parents biologically or learned from personal experiences. In the case of Frankenstein, Mary Shelley argues that Frankenstein’s monster’s character developed because of the fact that he was not nurtured correctly. Mary Shelley is on the side supporting nurture in the nature versus nurture controversy.
Victor Frankenstein abandoned the creature as soon as he created it which led to the creature being the way he is now, acting destructive but on the inside, truly nice. It could be argued that the monster’s nature was to kill, as Victor Frankenstein created him as an adult, and did not …show more content…
The monster was made as an adult without knowledge. The monster had to teach himself the entire English language as well as learn how to write and learn about the world. With all of the evidence in the novel, we know how intelligent the monster is. The definition of nurture is encouraging the growth or development of someone or something. The monster evidently grew and developed from watching the DeLacey family. The argument against this overlooks the exact definition of nurture. Although the way the monster was nurtured was not ideal for a normal lifestyle, it is still proven that a form of nurture was received.
Topic Sentence:
A personality is formed by the nurture received; the monster looked at his surroundings and learnt from it, all he could.
Counter Argument:
It is argued that he monster was destructive and murdered all of those innocent people because of the fact that he was not nurtured, it was because of his nature.
Textual Evidence:
“As I read, however, I applied much personally to my own feelings and condition. I found myself similar yet at the same time strangely unlike to the beings concerning whom I read and to whose conversation I was a listener. I sympathized with and partly understood them, but I was unformed in mind; I was dependent on none and related to none”
Victor Frankenstein abandoned the creature as soon as he created it which led to the creature being the way he is now, acting destructive but on the inside, truly nice. It could be argued that the monster’s nature was to kill, as Victor Frankenstein created him as an adult, and did not …show more content…
The monster was made as an adult without knowledge. The monster had to teach himself the entire English language as well as learn how to write and learn about the world. With all of the evidence in the novel, we know how intelligent the monster is. The definition of nurture is encouraging the growth or development of someone or something. The monster evidently grew and developed from watching the DeLacey family. The argument against this overlooks the exact definition of nurture. Although the way the monster was nurtured was not ideal for a normal lifestyle, it is still proven that a form of nurture was received.
Topic Sentence:
A personality is formed by the nurture received; the monster looked at his surroundings and learnt from it, all he could.
Counter Argument:
It is argued that he monster was destructive and murdered all of those innocent people because of the fact that he was not nurtured, it was because of his nature.
Textual Evidence:
“As I read, however, I applied much personally to my own feelings and condition. I found myself similar yet at the same time strangely unlike to the beings concerning whom I read and to whose conversation I was a listener. I sympathized with and partly understood them, but I was unformed in mind; I was dependent on none and related to none”