Philosophers and scientists alike have debated for centuries whether a person’s character is the result of nature or nurture. In the writings of Thomas Hobbes, it is expressed that humans are endowed with character from birth, and that they are innately evil in nature. John Locke’s response to this theory is that everyone is born with a tabula rasa, or blank slate, and then develops character after a series of formative experiences. The idea that true character is the result of experiences and societal interaction is a theme deeply explored throughout Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Through different interactions with the monster, Shelley attempts to express that it is because of Victor’s failings as a parent and creator, because of the monster’s isolation, and because of society’s reaction to the monster that the monster has become evil. The monster’s character is a direct result of how he was nurtured, based on his experiences and circumstances, rather than his being innately evil from “birth.”
One of the most influential contributions in the formation of the monster’s character is Victor’s failure as a creator and a father. As a creator, Victor has the responsibility of providing for his creation, just as God provided for Adam and Eve. At the same time, Victor also falls under the role of a father, and should therefore seek to strengthen the familial bond between the two of them. However, Victor fails in both of these endeavors, because he cannot accept the monster in his deformity. “Frankenstein’s sole regret… is that he did not create an aesthetically pleasing being” (Bond). Victor, due to his skewed vision of humanity, believes outer beauty to be a reflection of inner character, and that because of the monster’s hideous appe...
... middle of paper ...
...tation.” The English Review Sept. 2009: 18+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 9 Jan. 2015.
Lehman, Steven. “The Motherless Child in Science Fiction: Frankenstein and Moreau.” Science Fiction Studies 19:1 (Mar. 1992): 49-57. Rpt. In Children’s’ Literature Review. Ed. Tom Burns. Vol. 133. Gale, 2008. Literature Resource Center. Web. 9 Jan. 2015.
Marcus, Steven. "Frankenstein: myths of scientific and medical knowledge and stories of human relations." The Southern Review 38.1 (2002): 188+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 9 Jan. 2015.
Seabury, Marcia Bundy. "The Monsters We Create: Woman on the Edge of Time and Frankenstein." Critique 42.2 (Winter 2001): 131-143. Rpt. in Children's Literature Review. Ed. Tom Burns. Vol. 133. Detroit: Gale, 2008. Literature Resource Center. Web. 9 Jan. 2015.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003. Print.
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.
Hammond, Ray. “The Scientist as God.” The Modern Frankenstein: Fiction Becomes Fact. Poole: Blandford, 1986. 21-45. Rpt. in Nineteenth Century Literature Criticism. Ed. Jessica Momanto and Russel Whitaker. Vol. 170. Detroit: Gale, 2006.
Victor Frankenstein, the monster’s creator, is the victim of his own pride. An ego unchecked is a dangerous thing. But in truth, it really just shows Victor’s humanity. He is privileged, educated, talented, loved, adored, but he is not perfect. His flaw is his own ego and pride. Without doubt, this is the result of a childhood where he was overindulged. Overindulged to the extent he was given a little girl “Elizabeth” as a “present”, whom he considered from childhood “mine only” (Shelley 21). Little wonder the twenty year old Victor would think he could create, control and command life. But Victor as with any indulged child did not take the time to learn much from his parents about parenting and fath...
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: A Norton Critical Edition. ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996.
The nature vs. nurture discussion is extremely vital in Blessed Virgin Shelley’s novel Frankenstein. Victor Frankenstein and so the creature he creates every have academic degree innate nature that factors into each of their personalities. Frankenstein and so the creature unit of measurement subjected to 2 really totally different nurturing styles. although every nature and nurture unit of measurement necessary throughout the novel, the character argument is guilty for the season of Victor Frankenstein, whereas the nurture argument is guilty for the season of the creature. Shelley makes this idea clear to the reader through her powerful words once describing Victor’s and so the creature’s personalities.
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.
A predominant theme in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is that of child-rearing and/or parenting techniques. Specifically, the novel presents a theory concerning the negative impact on children from the absence of nurturing and motherly love. To demonstrate this theory, Shelly focuses on Victor Frankenstein’s experimenting with nature, which results in the life of his creature, or “child”. Because Frankenstein is displeased with the appearance of his offspring, he abandons him and disclaims all of his “parental” responsibility. Frankenstein’s poor “mothering” and abandonment of his “child” leads to the creation’s inevitable evilness. Victor was not predestined to failure, nor was his creation innately depraved. Rather, it was Victor’s poor “parenting” of his progeny that lead to his creation’s thirst for vindication of his unjust life, in turn leading to the ruin of Victor’s life.
In today’s world of genetically engineered hearts and genetically altered glowing rats, the story of Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, seems as if it could be seen in the newspapers in our near future. The discoveries seen in modern science, as well as in the novel, often have controversy and negative consequences that follow them, the biggest of which being the responsibility the creator of life has to what has been created. Victor Frankenstein suffers from a variety of internal and external conflicts stemming from the creation of his monster, which in return also experiences similar problems. Shelley uses these tumultuous issues to portray the discrepancies between right and wrong, particularly through romanticism and the knowledge of science.
After Frankenstein discovered the source of human life, he became wholly absorbed in his experimental creation of a human being. Victor's unlimited ambition, his desire to succeed in his efforts to create life, led him to find devastation and misery. "...now that I have finished, the beauty of the dream had vanished..." (Shelley 51). Victor's ambition blinded him to see the real dangers of his project. This is because ambition is like a madness, which blinds one self to see the dangers of his actions. The monster after realizing what a horror he was demanded that victor create him a partner. "I now also began to collect the materials necessary for my new creation, and this was like torture..." (Shelley 169). Victor's raw ambition, his search for glory, has left him. His eyes have been opened to see his horrible actions, and what have and could become of his creations. As a result, Victor has realized that he is creating a monster, which could lead to the downfall of mankind. His choice is simple, save his own life or save man.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: A Norton Critical Edition. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W. W.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a nineteenth century literary work that delves into the world of science and the plausible outcomes of morally insensitive technological research. Although the novel brings to the forefront several issues about knowledge and sublime nature, the novel mostly explores the psychological and physical journey of two complex characters. While each character exhibits several interesting traits that range from passive and contemplative to rash and impulsive, their most attractive quality is their monstrosity. Their monstrosities, however, differ in the way each of the character’s act and respond to their environment. Throughout Frankenstein, one assumes that Frankenstein’s creation is the true monster. While the creation’s actions are indeed monstrous, one must also realize that his creator, Victor Frankenstein is also a villain. His inconsiderate and selfish acts as well as his passion for science result in the death of his friend and family members and ultimately in his own demise.
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.
Shelley, Mary. “Frankenstein.” In A Norton Critical Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 1996.
Since its publication in 1818, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has grown to become a name associated with horror and science fiction. To fully understand the importance and origin of this novel, we must look at both the tragedies of Mary Shelley's background and her own origins. Only then can we begin to examine what the icon "Frankenstein" has become in today's society.
Burns, Alisa. “Frankenstein of the Future.” Frankenstein Commentary. N.p., Sept. 2002. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. .