The Morally Ambiguous Character In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

When people are born, and throughout their lives, they learn about good and bad, evilness and benevolence. Once learning about this they are able to decide who they are and who they want to be. Are they purely evil or purely good? Or both? In the novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley uses the morally ambiguous character of the creature to convey how isolation and society's expectations towards appearance can lead to the desire for revenge. Additionally, the creature demonstrates that when revenge consumes an individual it can lead to tragic consequences. The creature was “born” a clean slate, when he first came to life he was like a baby, neither good nor bad. This suggests that all humans, including Frankenstein, have a choice and that, just like the creature, humans can make good and bad decisions that don't necessarily make them good or evil. For example, at the beginning of the novel Victor abandons the creature, leaving him an orphan and in a state of confusion. Deserted and disoriented, the creature left Victor Frankenstein’s apartment and found a hovel he could live in. The hovel belonged to cottagers, the De Lacy family. By
The creature felt as if Victor had wronged him by making him look like a monster, menacing and fighting. Angered and lonely, the creature blamed Victor for creating him the way he did, abandoning him, and refusing to make him a companion. In order, to receive retribution the creature brings suffering to Victor by killing off those he loves the most. This limitation of his evil is important because it demonstrates that the creature is not necessarily purely evil because he does not go after all of the human race; the creature specifically targets Victor’s loved ones, which in turn is hurting and causing pain to Victor. By allowing revenge to consume him the creature leads himself (and Victor) to