Who is the real monster in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein?

Who is the Real Monster in Frankenstein?
British Literature

The author, Stephen King, once wrote, “Sometimes human places, create inhuman monsters.” The concept of what constitutes a “monster” has been debated by countless scholars for decades. Monsters can take on many forms—in the body or in the soul; in Mary Shelley’s, Frankenstein, she discusses the concept of a monster by portraying a tragedy about an obsessed scientist, Victor Frankenstein, and his nameless creation. A series of murders occur after his monster is created, and is a topic of discussion of who is really to blame for the catastrophes. Furthermore, some people believe the true fiend in Frankenstein is Victor’s creation; however, Victor is the real monster and his creation is corrupted because of his materialistic beliefs, his self-centeredness, his thirst for fame, and his inability to accept his dark side. Victor’s avarice bred his unnatural motivation to create life and to surpass God; he became obsessed with science, and he disregarded the greatness of natural creation. Victor used to be obsessed with alchemy, but even though he ultimately recognized it as a pseudoscience, he kept a hold of that drive in order to change the world and be forever known as the man who transcended God. However, it was a deluded dream of Victor to achieve this—a simple, human scientist cannot compare to the intangible and incomprehensible actions of a deity; also, all of the cadavers he used to construct his creation were already produced by God, and here, author David Hogsette states, “He reduces true creation to materialistic invention, and he remains a finite materialist in a state of denial, inventing by assembling preexisting materials into a hideous frame fashioned after his own filthy image, constructing his own "hideous progeny" that he is unprepared to accept, nurture, or redeem” (Hogsette p. 534). Basically, Victor cannot surpass a supreme being that already created any materials he hopes to use to manufacture artificial life—he cannot compare to God, but he is unwilling to accept this. The consequences of his hubris and simplification of God are disastrous to Victor and his family, as well as his creation. Countless people argue that Victor’s Creation was completely at fault for the tragedies; however, the Monster is not completely to blame for his murderous tendencies, since he is corrupted by both Victor and society. Right from the beginning of his reanimation, Victor ran away from his Creation in disgust and allowed him to face the harsh dangers of the world alone. After the Monster left, he faced countless displays of hatred and malice towards him, much to his utter confusion; Liselott Nidesjö , an English student at Halmstad University, states, “Victor has crafted a child placed in a hideous and terrifying adult body that not even he can stand to face” (Nidesjö p. 9). Basically, the Monster may as well have been a freshly born baby in a disgusting and hideous creature’s body—he had no knowledge of the world or his own deformities, and he did not understand why people wanted to hurt him, until he realized it is only because his appearance horrified and disgusted them. Even after he came to this realization, he still attempted to seek love and acceptance from the blind De Lacey, but he was met with the frightened and brutal beatings of De Lacey’s son, Felix. But instead of retaliating, he left; he also saved a drowning girl, but his final act of kindness is not met with gratitude, but with gunshots. The brutality is the response to all of his attempts to be good-natured and even caused him to question suicide, as he did not wish to live in pain and anguish. Here the Monster stated, “Why did I live? Why, in that instant, did I not extinguish the spark of existence which you had so wantonly bestowed” (Shelley p.117). This shows that the Monster was not inherently evil, he was gentle by nature and turned malevolent by Victor’s irresponsibility and society’s cruelty. What is worse is that the Monster is quite eloquent, and here author Melissa Bissonette states, “He is kinder, more loving, and more poetic than his creator. The tragedy of the book is so transparently the way the world deforms and embitters him” (Bissonette p.108). If he had a more aesthetically pleasing body, the Monster could have had a good life. Another one of Victor’s flaws that caused tragedy to occur was his narcissism and self-centeredness. When he first began to work on his Creation, he isolated himself and ignored his family’s attempts to contact him; he was stuck in his own world that he had filled with death in order to create life, and this caused him to neglect the people who loved him. He also allowed his ego to rule him, and he let this egotism own cloud his judgment and cause him to be reckless—he had a responsibility to take care of his Creation, but he only thought about himself and let the newly animated creature face the world alone. Even though Victor idealized his perfect family, he allowed his own Creation to grow up without a father or guiding figure; this also shows how “his world only revolves around him.” Time passed, and the Creature turned to evil since nothing good ever came from his unrequited kindness, and he found Victor once again. After Victor realized the Monster is the one that killed Victor’s little brother, William, and he had a chance to admit his failure and save the wrongly accused Justine’s life, but he chose not to for several reasons—he did not want to face his defeat, and he valued his reputation more than Justine’s life. After the Monster confronted Victor, he presented to him an opportunity to prevent future destruction, and to finally be rid of him by creating him a female companion; the Monster even stated, “If any being felt emotions of benevolence towards me, I should return them an hundred and an hundred fold; for that one creature’s sake, I would make peace with the whole kind” (Shelley p.126). Victor agreed, but ultimately broke his promise when he destroyed the female creature. He did not carefully think about the Monster’s threats, he simply assumed that the Monster would only hurt him, not his family. His negligence to acknowledge that his family may be harmed as a consequence of his broken promise lead to their deaths, and yet he still blamed his Creation. Victor’s unquenchable craving for notoriety ultimately caused the irreparable agony in the book. He did not consider the prospective harmful effects of his experiments, he only wished to be renowned and worshipped, and he wanted this fame as soon as possible. Since he hastily constructed the Monster, and he purposely did not pay attention to detail so that he would finish swiftly, the creature looked hideous—this is another reason why the Monster’s life turned into a nightmare. On another note, even though some argue that Victor had noble reasons for creating life, such as reversing death and illness, his motivation behind these wishes completely negated any benevolent thoughts behind his enthusiasm; he wanted eternal gratitude and recognition from the people he resurrected, and he states here, “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me” (Shelley p.44). This desire to replace God and be known by all is not noble, and it shows his true character. Additionally, another flaw that Victor had was his deluded perspective of himself. He had a happy childhood, and he had placed many expectations on himself to succeed. Once his mother died, he suppressed his grief and instead of caring for his family, he left for university; Sara Marklund, a student at Gotebӧrg University, states, “The result of Victor depriving himself of any passionate feelings or actions has made him an empty shell, governed by social rules and his family’s expectations” (Marklund p.14). Essentially, Victor repressed his feelings after Caroline died, and he ultimately became obsessed with death and how to reverse it. This proved to be fatal for his future, since his bottled up emotions were eventually released and placed into his Creation. In this way, the Monster mirrored Victor’s repressed dark side—he was the product of Victor’s imperfection and over-ambition. All things considered, even though people argue that Victor’s Creation is to blame for all of the destruction, Victor is the actual monster that corrupts his Creation because of his materialism, his self-centeredness, his thirst for fame, and his inability to accept his dark side. Mary Shelley carefully crafts her words in the book to leave room for discussion—who is at fault for the disasters? Some scholars argue that the Creation is to blame, while others point the culpability towards Victor. Even though the Monster was the one with blood on his hands, it was ultimately Victor’s fault for his irresponsibility and other imperfections. All in all, if Victor had simply taken on the responsibility of being the creator he had so wantonly wished for, things would have worked out much differently.

Works Cited
Bissonette, Melissa Bloom. “Teaching The Monster: “Frankenstein” And Critical Thinking.” College Literature 37.3 (2010). 109-120. Sociological Collection. Web. 8 Dec. 2014 < http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=75c1f0dc-eb22-4c3d-a18f- ed0cc5bc8606%40sessionmgr4001&vid=2&hid=4110>
Hogsette, David S. “Metaphysical Intersections In “Frankenstein”: Mary Shelley’s Theistic Investigation of Scientific Materialism And Transgressive Autonomy.” Christianity & Literature 60.4 (2011):531-559. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Dec. 2014. < http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=75c1f0dc-eb22-4c3d- a18f-ed0cc5bc8606%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4110>
Marklund, Sara. “Good And Evil In Man: The Double Nature of Victor In ‘Frankenstein’.” (2010):OAlster. Web. 2 Dec. 2014 <https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/23793/2/gupea_2077_23793_2.pdf>
Nidesjo, Liselott. “Who is the Monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein?: A Psychoanalytic Reading of the Double Nature of Victor Frankenstein .”(2012).
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein Literary Touchstone. New York: Prestwick House, 2005. Print.

Cited: Bissonette, Melissa Bloom. “Teaching The Monster: “Frankenstein” And Critical Thinking.” College Literature 37.3 (2010). 109-120. Sociological Collection. Web. 8 Dec. 2014 < http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=75c1f0dc-eb22-4c3d-a18f- ed0cc5bc8606%40sessionmgr4001&vid=2&hid=4110> Hogsette, David S. “Metaphysical Intersections In “Frankenstein”: Mary Shelley’s Theistic Investigation of Scientific Materialism And Transgressive Autonomy.” Christianity & Literature 60.4 (2011):531-559. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Dec. 2014. < http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=75c1f0dc-eb22-4c3d- a18f-ed0cc5bc8606%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4110> Marklund, Sara. “Good And Evil In Man: The Double Nature of Victor In ‘Frankenstein’.” (2010):OAlster. Web. 2 Dec. 2014 <https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/23793/2/gupea_2077_23793_2.pdf> Nidesjo, Liselott. “Who is the Monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein?: A Psychoanalytic Reading of the Double Nature of Victor Frankenstein .”(2012). Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein Literary Touchstone. New York: Prestwick House, 2005. Print.