Introduction
This essay explores the complex question of monstrosity in Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein* (1818), focusing on whether Victor Frankenstein or his creation embodies the true essence of a monster. Published during the Romantic era, Shelley’s novel grapples with themes of ambition, responsibility, and the ethical boundaries of scientific pursuit. The narrative presents two central figures—Victor, the overreaching scientist, and the creature, a being born of unnatural means—who both exhibit monstrous traits. This analysis will investigate why each character could be deemed monstrous, considering the social, psychological, and moral factors that shape their actions. Furthermore, it will evaluate whether either character achieves redemption by the novel’s conclusion. Through a detailed examination of textual evidence and scholarly perspectives, this essay argues that while the creature’s actions are undeniably destructive, Victor Frankenstein emerges as the true monster due to his negligence and failure to take responsibility for his creation.
Defining Monstrosity in *Frankenstein*
To determine who the true monster is, it is essential to define what constitutes monstrosity within the context of Shelley’s work. Monstrosity in *Frankenstein* extends beyond physical appearance to encompass moral failings, destructive behavior, and the violation of natural or ethical boundaries. As Baldick (1987) suggests, the Gothic tradition often uses the monstrous as a metaphor for societal fears about unchecked ambition and the consequences of transgressing natural laws (Baldick, 1987). Victor Frankenstein’s act of creating life defies divine and natural order, positioning him as a monstrous figure from the outset. Meanwhile, the creature’s grotesque appearance and violent acts align with conventional notions of monstrosity, yet his capacity for emotion and desire for acceptance complicate this view. Therefore, monstrosity in the novel is a multifaceted concept, rooted in both action and intent.
Victor Frankenstein: The Architect of Monstrosity
Victor Frankenstein’s claim to monstrosity lies in his reckless ambition and subsequent abandonment of his creation. Driven by an insatiable desire to transcend human limitations, Victor pursues the creation of life without considering the ethical implications. He admits to being consumed by “a resistless, and almost frantic impulse” to achieve his goal (Shelley, 1818, p. 36). This obsession reveals a profound hubris, a trait often associated with monstrous overreach in Romantic literature. Moreover, Victor’s immediate rejection of the creature upon witnessing its grotesque form—“the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form” (Shelley, 1818, p. 43)—demonstrates a failure of responsibility that sets the tragic events of the novel in motion. As Mellor (1988) argues, Victor’s neglect mirrors patriarchal irresponsibility, reflecting broader anxieties about the misuse of scientific power during the early 19th century (Mellor, 1988). His refusal to nurture or guide the creature transforms a potentially innocent being into a vengeful force, arguably making Victor the primary source of monstrosity.
The Creature: A Product of Rejection
In contrast, the creature’s monstrosity appears to stem not from inherent evil but from the circumstances of his creation and subsequent rejection. Born without a name or identity, the creature is an outcast from the moment of his animation, as Victor flees in horror at the sight of him. The creature’s initial innocence is evident in his yearning for connection, as he observes the De Lacey family and learns language and emotion through their interactions. He poignantly reflects, “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend” (Shelley, 1818, p. 84). This statement suggests that his violent actions—most notably the murders of William, Clerval, and Elizabeth—are a response to the profound isolation and rejection he endures. Scholarly opinion, such as that of Levine (1973), supports this view by arguing that the creature’s monstrosity is a social construct, a result of humanity’s inability to accept difference (Levine, 1973). Therefore, while the creature commits monstrous acts, these can be seen as the tragic outcome of Victor’s initial failure.
Paths to Redemption: Victor and the Creature
A critical aspect of evaluating monstrosity lies in whether either character achieves redemption. Victor’s journey offers little evidence of genuine remorse or growth. Although he pursues the creature with the intent to destroy it, his motivations are rooted more in self-preservation and vengeance than in a desire to atone for his negligence. Even on his deathbed, Victor warns Walton against unchecked ambition but fails to fully acknowledge his role in the creature’s descent into violence (Shelley, 1818, p. 191). This lack of self-reflection suggests that Victor remains unredeemed, trapped by the same hubris that defined his initial transgression. Indeed, as Baldick (1987) notes, Victor’s narrative serves as a cautionary tale rather than a redemptive arc (Baldick, 1987).
Conversely, the creature’s potential for redemption is more ambiguous. After Victor’s death, the creature expresses profound remorse for his actions, declaring, “I shall no longer feel the agonies which now consume me” (Shelley, 1818, p. 198). This moment of self-awareness and his decision to end his existence by disappearing into the Arctic wilderness suggest a tragic recognition of his own destructiveness. Some scholars, such as Mellor (1988), interpret this as a limited form of redemption, as the creature takes responsibility for his actions in a way Victor never does (Mellor, 1988). However, this redemption is incomplete, as it comes too late to Undo the harm he has caused. Arguably, the creature’s capacity for remorse underscores his humanity, further highlighting Victor’s greater monstrosity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both Victor Frankenstein and his creation exhibit traits of monstrosity, Victor emerges as the true monster in Shelley’s *Frankenstein*. His unchecked ambition and refusal to accept responsibility for his creation set the stage for the novel’s tragic events, whereas the creature’s destructive actions are a direct result of rejection and isolation. Furthermore, Victor’s lack of genuine remorse contrasts with the creature’s fleeting moments of self-awareness, suggesting that the creator bears greater moral culpability. This analysis not only highlights the personal failings of Victor as a scientist but also reflects broader Romantic anxieties about the dangers of overreaching human ambition. Ultimately, Shelley’s novel challenges readers to reconsider conventional definitions of monstrosity, urging a deeper examination of the societal and ethical forces that shape monstrous behavior. The implications of this discussion extend beyond the text, prompting reflection on the responsibilities that accompany scientific innovation in our own era.
References
- Baldick, C. (1987) *In Frankenstein’s Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity, and Nineteenth-Century Writing*. Oxford University Press.
- Levine, G. (1973) *Frankenstein and the Tradition of Realism*. *Novel: A Forum on Fiction*, 7(1), pp. 14-30.
- Mellor, A. K. (1988) *Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters*. Methuen.
- Shelley, M. (1818) *Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus*. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.
