Frankenstein
by portersarah
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley was a better read than the first time round. When I was in grade 11 I feel that I wanted to dislike the book to prove the point that Romantic literature is boring. Needless to say now that I am not the biggest fan of Romantic literature; however, the second time reading Frankenstein it was not as bad as I initially received it. Also I figured out exactly why I do not like it. I have to say Frankenstein has to be my least favorite character of all time. Sure you can say he is an anti-hero and he made a mistake playing with life and death. But really, what did he think was going to happen when he stitched together corpses? That they would magically make him into a perfect being? And also, what is up with all the running away. Sure his monster is pretty horrific and not too nice, but he did make him. Maybe if he stuck around and taught him stuff his monster would not have gone on and murders his family and other people. But then again, nurture versus nature… Which I have to say I am not completely sure it is nature. I feel that Frankenstein’s monster could be capable of being nurtured into an upstanding loving citizen, as shown through the part of him watching over the activities of that family. He grew to love, and when they did not love him he went out of control. I am not advocating that Frankenstein should have complied with his wishes, and I understand he was upset when he made the monster, but I do think he should have taken responsibility to look after him. Or attempt to. Also, it is not only his relationship with the monster and his way of running away when the going gets tough, there is just something else I do not like about him.
Anyways, my favorite part in the whole book was how Mary Shelley shows you a bit of humanity in the monster as he grows to love and learns what is love. That is not to excuse his behavior later in the book; however, I like how she brings out the monster in him. Definitely not the Frankenstein story I was hoping for. But then again, maybe I just like clichéd stories.
Hi Sarah!
I agree with you about the nature/nurture situation of The Monster. The most interesting thing about The Monster for me is that when it was created it could have become anything. It was open to whatever people taught it or however they taught it to exist. It only gained a “monstrous” disposition after it was treated cruelly and kicked away from society. He really is the monster in the mirror because not only did mankind create his physical form, they also taught it to be a monster. Hm. The whole book is really a battle with out own monstrosity.
Sam
You bring up an interesting point about how the creation “could have become anything.” This is true, and I feel as if the book is not only about battling with our own monstrosity but somewhat about how we not only create ourselves, but how we can influence the growth of others inadvertently, and/or purposely.
I don’t know for sure, but thanks for the thoughts!
Kailer