“I am malicious because I am miserable.” (P.124) Nature vs Nurture is prevailed all throughout Mary Shelley’s book, Frankenstein. Shelley created the creature as if he was a newborn baby and his personality was shaped by the events that had happened in his life. The creature's environment, good or bad, impacted his personality as well as the lack of love, and a combination of isolation and hatred, led the creature to turn towards a path of destruction.
Man by nature judges people and such based upon their appearance. If a person is charming then they will be given more of a chance to show people who they really are. If they are hideous or disfigured, they usually aren't given much of a chance to show their true colors. “Hideous” people are thought of as monsters and are rejected by MANY. People seem to be scared of the unknown and unfamiliar as well as being scared of things they do not really understand. Disfiguration is something that most people cannot look past. As Shelley states in Frankenstein
“His limbs were in proportion and I had selected his features as beautiful.
…show more content…
If he would have taken care, nurtured and raised his creation properly, there would have been no victims and therefore nothing to take any blame of. It could have been as simple as nurturing him as any other human, with teaching his creation kindness, love and happiness towards others; if only Victor had just given in the time and effort. His creation required love to become kind but because he did not show or give love he is a monster himself. To blame is definitely on Victor for the deaths in his family since he created the creature, but he refuses to take blame. The irony of Victor murdering his own family makes it ludicrous for him to take no blame and place the entire fault on the creature that he totally OBSESSED over to
We must ask ourselves if his guilt pardons him from his actions. Is he truly a dark and disturbed person if he feels guilt? I believe the answer is yes, solely because his guilt isn't enough to push him to try and amend for his actions. As a man alone, Victor has not at all failed. Man is flawed and as such is expected to make mistakes. In Victor's case, his mistakes are many and much, but nothing less is to be expected of a man, who in his own nature, is nothing more than someone else's creation. He did however, fail as a creator who is responsible for the actions and wellbeing of those he creates. The creature's actions are to be seen as not just his own crimes but Victor's as well. I do still that he can be classified as a morally ambiguous character. I personally believe that Victor acted selfishly a majority of the novel and has a poor moral compass guiding his actions. However, others may argue that he was acting in a way he thought would benefit those around him. There is evidence to argue both side, thus leaving Victor morally
Mary Shelley put a new outlook on nature versus nurture in human development. By making the monster’s being a blank slate, and morphing his personality based on the different events that shape his life, Shelley clearly states her support for the nurture side.
The article “Moral Ignorance and Blameworthiness” states “There are less easily explained cases of ignorant wrongdoers: apparently ordinary people who knowingly cause suffering in pursuit of power or profit” (Mason). No one in their right mind would ever think that it is socially acceptable to create this creature, neglect it to the point where it runs away, and then not take responsibility for the actions of the creature that he created. There is a complete disconnect between Victor and the society that he lives in. For example, the reason that Victor neglects his creature is the fact that it is physically ugly.
Despite the rash actions that Victor takes, he ultimately does assume complete responsibility for the creature that he brought into being. After the monster murders William, Justine is then tried for the murder. Victor accepts that it was his fault even though he was not the one that actually murdered him: "But I, the true murderer, felt the never-dying worm alive in my bosom, which allowed of no hope or consolation" (74). Victor felt as if he had actually murdered both children because he had created the murderer. Even though in the end Justine took the official blame, Victor seized the responsibility so he took steps towards catching the monster and stopping him from killing anyone else. If he was not concerned with it being his fault one way or another he would not have continued to try to put the monster to rest. Later on, while Victor is creating a companion for the monster, he realizes the implications of a second creation: "Had I right, for my own benefit, t...
Andrew Lustig proposed a great question to the readers of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, “How far should we go in out efforts to alter nature, including human nature? As stewards of God’s creation what are our responsibilities?” (Lustig 1) This question results in theme of nature vs. nurture in the novel. The nature vs. nurture debate is an important topic in Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein. The two central characters, Victor Frankenstein and the creature that he creates; both, characters were raised differently. The nature and the nurture of their upbringing can be a cause of why they are, the way they are. Victor and his creature are subject to very different nurturing styles. Shelley also incorporates the representations of light and fire. This representation is key to the nature vs. nurture discussion in the novel.
As a romantic, archetype and gothic novel, Victor is responsible for the monsters actions because Victor abandons his creation meaning the creature is dejected and ends up hideous and fiendish. It is unfair to create someone into this world and then just abandon it and not teach it how to survive. The quote from the creature “Why did you make such a hideous creature like me just to leave me in disgust” demonstrates how much agony the creature is in. He is neglected because of his creator. The monster says “The hateful day when I received life! I accurse my creator. Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?” Victor is wholly at fault for his actions, image and evil.
Man by nature, judges people and things by their appearance. If a person is pleasant looking then they will be given more of a chance to express their internal self. If they are ugly, or cosmetically deformed, they usually aren't given much of a chance to show who they really are. Grotesquely ugly people are sometimes thought of as monsters, and are ostracized. Many cosmetically inferior people are afraid to go out into society. Mankind seems to be fearful of the unfamiliar and unknown. People are afraid of what they do not understand. Deformaty is something that most people can not comprehend.
When Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein is analyzed, critics comes to a conclusion about Victor Frankenstein's creation. The creature invokes the most sympathy from the readers than any other character in the novel. Because he is abandoned by society which manipulates the creature to do evil things despite his good heart. Therefore Shelley's message throughout the novel is that a person is not born evil, they are made evil.
Victor’s thoughts of grander clouded his mind making him think “A new species would bless [him] as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to [him]”(Ch.4, p.39). But life never goes as planned and Victor dropped all his obligations when he realized what he had done. Victor never questioned if creating a new species was morally right because he imagined they’d be grateful for him more than anything. For Victor to full fill his dream he knew that there needed to be a mate for his creature but “[he] thought with a sensation of madness on [his] promise of creating another like him, and trembling with passion, tore to pieces the thing on which I was engaged” (Ch.20, p.145). Instead of feeling like he owed his creature anything or thinking of the ethics of destroying his mate, Victor only cared for himself. On one hand it doesn’t seem like Victor desired to create pain and suffering when he created life. On the other hand it doesn’t seem like he should be free of all moral blame because he had good intentions even if it was difficult to be certain of those intentions. His lack of moral responsibility is only part of Victor but without the rest we wouldn’t have Doctor
American psychologist and well renowned author Jerome Kagan states “Genes and family may determine the foundation of the house, but time and place determine its form.” The topic of nature vs. nurture is highly known to the English literature community and is classified as a major aspect of gothic works. In the novel Frankenstein the author Mary Shelley uses the monster’s constant rejection from society to demonstrate that an individual’s traits are affected more by their environment and their surroundings than by nature.
Fortunately, he is not completely soulless and devoid of sympathy for his fallen loved ones. He may not feel personally responsible for the deaths, but he does feel guilty about them. After the wrongful execution of the beloved Justine, Victor becomes “seized by remorse and the sense of guilt, which hurried [him] to a hell of intense tortures such as no language can describe” (Chp. 9). Here Victor genuinely does feel sorrowful over the deaths in his family, but he still doesn’t believe that he was directly responsible for the events that unfold. He even has the chance to help exonerate Justine because he knows that the murderer is the creature.
In Frankenstein, various themes are introduced. There are dangerous knowledge, sublime nature, nature versus nurture, monstrosity, and secrecy and guilt. I chose a main theme as nature versus nurture. Nature is some traits that a person is born with, and nurture is an environment that surrounds a person. The novel indirectly debates whether the development of individual is affected more by nature or by nurture through Victor and the Monster.
Society saw him as a repulsive monster that had no other intention that to harm people. This led them to shun him away from everyone. The creature himself also chose some decisions that were not the best options. Victor is responsible for taking care of hi creation. Most people in the world has one person that loves them, but if not one person does, mentally they can fall apart. People need to know that they may be contributing to the problem without even knowing it. All in all, everyone was at fault in some ways or another which led to the creature becoming a monster.
“I now hasten to the more moving part of my story. I shall relate events that impressed me with feelings which, from what I was, have made me what I am” (Shelley 92). Frankenstein’s Creature presents these lines as it transitions from a being that merely observes its surroundings to something that gains knowledge from the occurrences around it. The Creature learns about humanity from “the perfect forms of [his] cottagers” (90). Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein offers compelling insights into the everlasting nature versus nurture argument. Her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote, “Treat a person ill, and he will become wicked.” Shelley believes that the nurture of someone, or something, in the Creature’s case, forms them into who they become and what actions they take. While this is true for Frankenstein’s Creature, the same cannot be said about Victor Frankenstein.
After his creation, Frankenstein’s monster is left in isolation, cursed to endure people’s hatred towards him. This revulsion met by onlookers is merely based on the creature’s hideous looks. The monster is not actually a monster at all. He displays more humanity than many other characters in Frankenstein. The ultimate irony is that the prejudicial belief is what caused the reanimated human to become a monster. In the nature versus nurture debate, proponents of the nature theory believe that a person is unchanging and that one’s experiences do not affect that person’s behavior. If this were true, the monster would not change as a result of his interactions with humans. It is undeniable that the creature does immoral things, but when Frankenstein’s monster saves a little girl from drowning, Mary Shelley takes a clear stance that the creature was naturally noble but became monstrous as a result of interactions with humans.