Introduction
“Frankenstein” is a truly unique and outstanding novel with an original premise and a captivating story, which is further proven by its current cult status and its numerous reiterations. Though the name Frankenstein is often misattributed to the monster, the general appreciation for the sentiment of the story among general audiences is understandably high (Shelley). By creating a character that is originally kind and empathetic, yet is gradually driven to hatred, Mar Shelley outlines the power of nurture over nature, simultaneously pointing to the devastating effects of isolation and all-consuming revenge.
Discussion
The juxtaposition of identity and appearance is the central conflict of the novel and one of the main themes that the author raises. Namely, the initial attitudes and perceptions of the world and people in it that Frankenstein’s monster has, being guided by Victor, his creator, is mostly positive and exceptionally naive: “For a long time I could not conceive how one man could go forth to murder his fellow, or even why there were laws and governments” (Shelley). The specified characterization, which would later become the trope of a gentle giant, indicates a conflict between the hideous appearance of Frankenstein’s monster and his naive and positive attitude (Shelley). Specifically, the described portrayal of the monster subverts the expectations of the reader, pointing to the fact that the perception of appearances is highly subjective and is in no way relevant to one’s identity.
However, as the plot of the novel unravels and the monster encounters increasing fear and contempt toward his person among others, he develops a sense of resentment that demonstrates the difference in the effects of nature and nurture. On the surface, the specified juxtaposition implies that the monster, being inherently kind, was driven to become violent and vengeful by people’s lack of understanding, tolerance, and acceptance: “’ I expected this reception,’ said the daemon. ‘All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things!’” (Shelley). However, on further scrutiny, one will realize that the specified scenario exemplifies how one’s identity can be molded in a variety of ways while being initially neutral.
Indeed, Frankenstein’s monster is not depicted as being open with the qualities of care and compassion; instead, Mary Shelley points to the fact that these characteristics were initially cultivated by Victor: “Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition; for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me” (Shelley). Therefore, the monster’s positive attitude and the associated characteristics cannot be seen as the product of his nature but, instead, represent the effects of nurture. Similarly, the monster’s violent outbursts are in no way indicative of his nature. Quite the contrary, the specified properties of his are portrayed as the direct effect of violence and abuse to which he was subjected. Thus, juxtaposing the two traits, Shelly conveys the idea that nurture represents the definitive factor in shaping one’s personality, whereas nature does not play any major part in it. Instead, nature represents a blank slate on which the further path defined by nurture is charted.
Additionally, the novel sheds light on the issues of isolation and revenge as some of the most devastating experiences that are likely to cause irreparable psychological harm. Indeed, in “Frankenstein’s Monster,” Victor, the protagonist, becomes irreparably damaged due to the biased attitudes of others and the cruel nature of their attitude toward his creation and, by extension, toward himself. Specifically, Shelley portrays isolation as one of the contributing factors to his developing resentment toward people. Therefore, the devastating and destructive effect of isolation is presented in the novel quite consistently.
Arguably, the isolation that Victor faces is not inherently tied to him creating the monster but, rather, his impaired social skills. His problems building a rapport with others are stated expressively in the first act of the story: “I believed myself totally unfitted for the company of strangers” (Shelley). However, the experience of isolation exacerbates as Victor reveals the monster to the public. In turn, the concept of revenge as the other and much darker side of isolation is demonstrated by depicting Victor’s attitude toward the monster and his actions: “When I reflected on his crimes and malice, my hatred and revenge burst all bounds of moderation. I would have made a pilgrimage to the highest peak of the Andes, could I when there have precipitated him to their base” (Shelley). The portrayed sentiment does not represent a thorough understanding of the fact that the monster was created by Frankenstein in all senses, including the monster’s response to social contempt and fear.
Conclusion
Since the monster is originally created as kind and only succumbs to violence once exposed to contempt and inhumane treatment, Frankenstein’s monster demonstrates the detrimental effects of isolation and revenge. Furthermore, his character arc is illustrative of the significance of nurture as opposed to nature. Namely, his story arc proves that neither positive nor negative qualities are inherent; instead, they are developed and acquired by interacting with others and being exposed to specific attitudes and perceptions. Overall, being an inherently tragic story of a misunderstanding, the tale of Frankenstein’s monster demonstrates the significance of humanism as the ultimate ethical stance in regard to interpersonal interactions.
Work Cited
Shelley, Mary W. G. “Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus.” Project Gutenberg, 1993, Web.