Shelley's 'Nurture Vs. Nature In Frankenstein'

The “monstrous” controversy of nurture versus nature in Frankenstein

What makes a person who they are? Is it written in their genetic code or is it their experiences and upbringing? This age old debate about nurture versus nature is explored in the gothic novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley about a man obsessed with creating life and when he finally does, he shuns the creature and is faced with drastic consequences. To provide insight onto the definition of nature and nurture, Sir Francis Galton stated that “nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world; nurture is every influence from without that affects him after his birth”. It is the purpose of this essay to reveal Shelley’s favouritism
Exactly like a baby, the monster had no previous life experience which left him exploring the world around him on his own, including his discovery of his senses and fire (Shelley 107). He even mentions that “no distinct ideas occupied [his] mind” (Shelley 106). Clearly, Shelley is describing the mind of a young and inexperienced creature whose mental growth is “imbued with Lockean empricisim” or the theory that the mind is a blank slate only “to be written on by observation and sensory experience” (Chao 2). Correspondingly, his reaction towards being “attacked... until, grievously bruised by stones” (Shelley 109) was simply to turn the other cheek and run away. Surely an inherently evil being with supernatural strength would have decimated the population instead of “fearfully... [taking] refuge in a low hovel” (Shelley 109) as someone of a clear conscious would do. From the above, one can realise that Shelley purposely emphasised the purity of the monster early in the novel so that his progress from good to evil will strictly be a result of
The monster’s first introduction into the civilized society was done by observing the De Lacey family who unknowingly taught him about love, family, and language all of which just made him more aware of his isolated and unscrupulous nature. In fact, when he approached the blind De Lacey man in the hopes that the one who taught him of kindness would accept him, he was sorely disappointed and his beloved nurturers shunned and beat him. The monster was getting thrashed by Felix and yet never raised one finger to try and stop him because of the monster’s continuous loyalty he still felt. On top of this betrayal, his attempt at saving a drowning girl’s life was rewarded with a gunshot causing the monster’s “feelings of kindness and gentleness” to give place “to hellish rage” (Shelley 143). Without a doubt, these aforementioned events lead “the benevolent monster [to become] a cynical murderer” (Chao 3) especially when his last attempt at finding a companion with the young William failed yet again. As Melissa Bissonette stated, “[t]he tragedy of the book is so transparently the way the world deforms and embitters” (3) the monster. On the whole, he is only a monster because society moulded him to be that