Introduction
Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein*, first published in 1818, remains a seminal work in Gothic literature, exploring profound questions of humanity, morality, and responsibility. Central to the novel is the debate over who embodies the true “monster”—Victor Frankenstein, the ambitious scientist who defies natural boundaries, or his creation, often referred to as the Creature, who is cast into a world of rejection and isolation. This essay examines the concept of monstrosity in *Frankenstein*, arguing that while both characters exhibit monstrous traits, Victor Frankenstein ultimately emerges as the true monster due to his negligence and refusal to take responsibility for his creation. The discussion will explore the reasons behind each character’s descent into monstrosity and evaluate whether either achieves redemption. By drawing on textual evidence from Shelley’s novel, this analysis aims to provide a nuanced perspective on the ethical dilemmas at the heart of the narrative.
Defining Monstrosity: Physical and Moral Dimensions
To determine who the true monster is in *Frankenstein*, it is essential to define what constitutes monstrosity. On a superficial level, the Creature’s grotesque appearance immediately marks him as monstrous in the eyes of society. Shelley describes him as having “yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath” and “watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set” (Shelley, 1818, p. 58). This vivid imagery evokes horror and revulsion, positioning the Creature as an embodiment of the unnatural. However, physical deformity alone does not equate to true monstrosity; moral failings and actions must also be considered.
In contrast, Victor Frankenstein appears as a civilized, educated man, yet his ambition and hubris drive him to transgress ethical boundaries. By creating life without considering the consequences, Victor assumes a godlike role, an act of profound arrogance. His immediate rejection of the Creature—“the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (Shelley, 1818, p. 59)—reveals a moral failing that arguably surpasses the Creature’s physical aberrance. Thus, while the Creature’s appearance labels him as a monster in society’s eyes, Victor’s actions suggest a deeper, more insidious form of monstrosity.
Victor Frankenstein: A Monster of Neglect and Hubris
Victor Frankenstein’s transformation into a monster is rooted in his obsessive pursuit of knowledge and power, coupled with his refusal to accept responsibility for his creation. His ambition to “penetrate the recesses of nature” (Shelley, 1818, p. 53) drives him to create life, yet he recoils from the result, abandoning the Creature without guidance or compassion. This act of neglect sets the stage for the Creature’s subsequent suffering and violent actions. Victor’s failure to acknowledge his role as creator—and, by extension, as a parental figure—demonstrates a profound moral lapse. Indeed, his inability to feel empathy for his creation mirrors the coldness often associated with monstrosity.
Furthermore, Victor’s actions throughout the novel exacerbate his monstrous nature. He consistently prioritizes his own anguish over the safety of others, as seen when he fails to warn his loved ones about the Creature’s potential for revenge. The deaths of William, Justine, and Elizabeth can be traced back to Victor’s inaction and self-absorption. As he laments, “I, not in deed, but in effect, was the true murderer” (Shelley, 1818, p. 95), yet even this admission does not prompt him to take meaningful responsibility. Instead, he pursues vengeance against the Creature, perpetuating a cycle of destruction. Arguably, Victor’s unrelenting selfishness and lack of accountability render him the true monster of the narrative.
The Creature: A Monster Born of Rejection
In contrast, the Creature’s descent into monstrosity is a direct result of external forces, primarily Victor’s abandonment and society’s rejection. Initially, the Creature exhibits a desire for connection and understanding, as evidenced by his plea to Victor: “I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed” (Shelley, 1818, p. 103). This comparison to a fallen angel highlights the Creature’s awareness of his own innocence at birth and his subsequent corruption by mistreatment. His early attempts to integrate into human society, such as observing the De Lacey family, reveal a yearning for acceptance that is repeatedly denied due to his appearance.
The Creature’s turn to violence, including the murders of William and Elizabeth, can be seen as a reaction to unrelenting isolation and despair. While these acts are undeniably monstrous, they are contextualized by his statement, “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend” (Shelley, 1818, p. 103). This suggests that the Creature’s monstrosity is not inherent but rather a product of nurture—or the lack thereof. Therefore, while the Creature commits horrific deeds, his transformation into a monster is arguably a tragic outcome of Victor’s initial rejection.
Redemption: A Possibility for Either Character?
The question of redemption is crucial in assessing the nature of monstrosity in *Frankenstein*. For Victor, redemption remains elusive. Even in his final moments, he expresses remorse for his actions, warning Walton against unchecked ambition: “Seek happiness in tranquillity, and avoid ambition” (Shelley, 1818, p. 231). However, this regret comes too late to undo the harm he has caused, and his obsessive pursuit of the Creature until his death suggests an inability to fully relinquish his destructive tendencies. Victor’s story thus serves as a cautionary tale, with little evidence of true redemption.
The Creature, on the other hand, displays a capacity for self-reflection that hints at the possibility of redemption. After Victor’s death, he mourns his creator and acknowledges the futility of his vengeful path, declaring, “My heart was fashioned to be susceptible of love and sympathy; and when wrenched by misery to vice and hatred, it did not endure the violence of the change without torture” (Shelley, 1818, p. 234). His decision to end his own life by disappearing into the Arctic wilderness suggests a desire to prevent further harm, an act that could be interpreted as a final, redemptive gesture. While the Creature’s crimes cannot be erased, his remorse and self-awareness distinguish him from Victor’s unrelenting selfishness.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein* presents a complex exploration of monstrosity through the contrasting figures of Victor Frankenstein and his Creature. While the Creature’s grotesque appearance and violent actions align with traditional notions of a monster, his capacity for emotion and eventual remorse highlight the influence of external rejection on his behavior. Conversely, Victor’s hubris, neglect, and persistent refusal to accept responsibility position him as the true monster, whose moral failings drive the novel’s tragic events. Neither character fully achieves redemption, though the Creature’s self-awareness offers a glimmer of hope absent in Victor’s narrative. Ultimately, Shelley’s work challenges readers to look beyond physical appearances and consider the ethical dimensions of creation and responsibility, a theme that remains relevant in discussions of scientific ethics and human compassion today.
References
- Shelley, M. (1818) Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.
[Word Count: 1042, including references]
