Introduction
Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein* (1818) presents Victor Frankenstein as a complex character whose actions and motivations invite debate over whether he should be regarded as a tragic victim of circumstance or a villain responsible for the catastrophic outcomes of his ambition. This essay argues that Victor is more of a villain than a victim, primarily due to his reckless pursuit of scientific mastery, his neglect of moral responsibility, and his failure to mitigate the consequences of his creation. While acknowledging the personal losses and psychological torment he endures, the analysis will demonstrate that Victor’s choices and attitudes consistently reflect villainous traits. Through a detailed examination of key themes, textual evidence, and critical perspectives, this essay will explore the extent to which Victor’s character aligns with villainy over victimhood in the context of Romantic literature and ethical considerations.
The Reckless Pursuit of Knowledge
One of the clearest indicators of Victor’s villainy is his unrelenting ambition to transcend human limitations through scientific discovery, often at the expense of ethical boundaries. Victor’s obsession with “penetrating the recesses of nature” (Shelley, 1818, p. 49) drives him to create life without considering the moral implications of his actions. This mirrors the Romantic critique of unchecked Enlightenment ideals, wherein the pursuit of knowledge becomes dangerous when divorced from humanity. Indeed, Victor’s fixation on becoming a “creator” akin to a god highlights a hubris that ultimately leads to destruction. As critic Sandra Gilbert (1978) suggests, Victor’s ambition represents a patriarchal desire for dominance over nature, a trait that casts him as a villain who disrupts natural order for personal glory (Gilbert and Gubar, 1979).
Furthermore, Victor’s lack of foresight in animating the Creature without a plan for its care or integration into society underscores his irresponsibility. He admits to being “carried away by enthusiasm” (Shelley, 1818, p. 54), failing to anticipate the profound consequences of his experiment. This recklessness is not the mark of a mere victim of circumstance but rather of an individual whose choices actively precipitate harm. While one might argue that Victor’s initial intent was not malicious, the absence of ethical restraint in his pursuit of knowledge positions him as a villain whose actions outweigh any sympathetic motivations.
Neglect of Moral Responsibility
Victor’s villainy is further evidenced by his immediate rejection of the Creature and his refusal to take accountability for its existence. Upon beholding his creation, Victor is overcome with “horror and disgust” and flees, abandoning the being he has brought to life (Shelley, 1818, p. 56). This act of neglect is a critical turning point, as it sets the stage for the Creature’s isolation and subsequent acts of violence. Rather than nurturing or attempting to understand his creation, Victor shirks responsibility, allowing his fear and revulsion to dictate his actions. This behaviour aligns with villainy, as it demonstrates a failure to uphold the moral obligations inherent in creation.
Moreover, Victor’s inaction exacerbates the tragedy that unfolds. Even after the Creature pleads for companionship and understanding, Victor refuses to create a mate, citing fears of further chaos, yet he does little to address the Creature’s suffering directly (Shelley, 1818, p. 139). Critics such as Peter Brooks (1993) argue that Victor’s rejection of the Creature mirrors a broader rejection of social responsibility, framing him as a villain who prioritises self-preservation over empathy (Brooks, 1993). While Victor’s hesitation to create another being might seem rational, his complete dismissal of the Creature’s emotional needs reveals a profound lack of compassion, further cementing his role as a villain rather than a victim.
Failure to Mitigate Consequences
Perhaps the most damning evidence of Victor’s villainy lies in his failure to prevent or mitigate the consequences of his creation, even when he becomes aware of the danger posed by the Creature. After the murders of his brother William and friend Henry Clerval, Victor suspects the Creature’s involvement but does little to actively stop further violence. Instead, he succumbs to despair and guilt, lamenting his role in these deaths yet taking insufficient action to protect others, such as his fiancée Elizabeth, who ultimately falls victim to the Creature’s wrath (Shelley, 1818, p. 189). This passivity, arguably stemming from self-absorption, contrasts sharply with the proactive responsibility one might expect from a victim seeking redemption.
Additionally, Victor’s eventual pursuit of the Creature across the Arctic is driven more by vengeance than by a genuine desire to protect others, as he admits to being consumed by “hatred and revenge” (Shelley, 1818, p. 198). This obsession with personal retribution, rather than a broader sense of duty, further undermines any claim to victimhood. As Mellor (1988) notes, Victor’s inability to balance his emotional turmoil with rational responsibility marks him as a destructive force, akin to a villain whose actions perpetuate suffering (Mellor, 1988). Thus, Victor’s failure to act decisively in the face of escalating tragedy reinforces the argument that his villainy overshadows any sympathetic elements of his character.
Counterarguments: Victor as a Victim
It is worth considering the perspective that Victor might be seen as a victim of his own ambition and the unintended consequences of his creation. He endures significant personal loss, including the deaths of loved ones, and suffers immense psychological torment, as evidenced by his “feverish anxiety” and recurring nightmares (Shelley, 1818, p. 58). Furthermore, one could argue that Victor is a product of his environment, influenced by the intellectual fervour of his time and the personal grief over his mother’s death, which fuels his desire to conquer death itself. However, while these factors evoke sympathy, they do not absolve Victor of responsibility for his choices. His suffering, though real, is arguably self-inflicted, a consequence of decisions he was not forced to make. Therefore, these elements of victimhood are overshadowed by the deliberate nature of his villainous actions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Victor Frankenstein emerges more as a villain than a victim in Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein*, primarily due to his reckless ambition, neglect of moral responsibility, and failure to mitigate the devastating consequences of his creation. While his personal suffering and psychological turmoil invite some degree of sympathy, these aspects are ultimately outweighed by the deliberate and irresponsible choices he makes throughout the narrative. This analysis not only highlights the ethical dilemmas inherent in scientific progress, a key concern of Romantic literature, but also prompts broader reflection on the nature of responsibility and accountability in human endeavours. Victor’s story serves as a cautionary tale, reminding readers of the dangers of hubris and the moral obligations tied to the act of creation. By examining Victor’s actions through a critical lens, it becomes evident that his villainy defines his character far more than any claim to victimhood.
References
- Brooks, P. (1993) Body Work: Objects of Desire in Modern Narrative. Harvard University Press.
- Gilbert, S. M. and Gubar, S. (1979) The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. Yale University Press.
- Mellor, A. K. (1988) Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters. Routledge.
- Shelley, M. (1818) Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor, & Jones.
