 abnormally tall, ugly, and strong. People predetermine that he is something to be feared and struck down...rather like the pitchfork scene in Shrek.
The creature is beaten, chased, and when the De Lacey family leaves him, he is without all hope of ever being accepted into society. He therefore decides to seek revenge on his creator, Victor, who has carelessly thrown the creature to the destiny that fate holds for him.
The creature explains that he just wants to be happy. When Victor again denies him this by refusing the female, the creature swears that Victor will not be happy either. I don't think this makes him evil...just human.
This is a pretty controversial question. First of all, the creature was, in fact, 'born' with the basic qualities of love and compassion that one would expect to find in the average human being. However, Victor couldn't see this due to the creature's hideous exterior. As well, it seemed that the rest of humanity would shun him too, without even giving him a chance to prove himself to them. Up to this point, the creature, safe to say, was certainly not evil. However, after being thrown into misery from being an outcast, the creature fell into a haze of hatred towards his creator, and he became possessed with a sense of vengeance. This is where he starts torturing Victor by killing off his loved ones one by one. I think that this is what makes the creature evil. Yes, Victor was wrong and irresponsible to neglect his creation, but he certainly did not deserve all of the agony that the monster made him endure. So, he could have been good, but because he was unable to deal with his emotions properly, chose to be evil instead.
This is a massive question and a favourite one for assessments of this novel. It is key to realise how in Gothic fiction the binary opposition of man/monster is played wth and manipulated to not give us any definite answers. It would be very easy to consign the creature to the category of monster, as Frankenstein seems to do, but to do this ignores the way that he shows himself to be capable of the same kind of independent creative thought and emotions as humans. Indeed, some argue that he shows himself to be more of a 'man' than mankind itself, that is characterised in the novel as a bloodthirsty pack of hounds hungering for the unjust execution of Justine and expelling the creature. He himself suggests that he commits evil crimes as a direct result of the way that he is treated by mankind, forcing us to ask hard questions about whether mankind is the real monster in this novel.
Is the monster in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein good or evil?
Is the monster in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein good or evil?
I have to write an essay with this as a title. I'm finding this novel hard to get into and only have a few days until deadline. Help!!!!
if you have an essay, just read the book. trust me it is a really good book. i have to do a project that is due possibly next week. i am freaking out. all i need are 40 sticky notes of examples from that book. it really sucks. i haven't even started on the stupid project. so your not the only one that has something due soon. my theme is Good/Evil. i have to show good and evil examples.
It really depends on whos story you believe the most. Frankenstein or the monster. If you believe in Frankenstein then the monster is evil and is full of lies and deciet. If you believe in the monster's story then you would think that it is Frankenstein's fault for not educating him.
The monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein complies with John Locke’s theory of ‘Tabula Rasa’; the mind is a “blank slate” when we are born and therefore our life experiences are what shape our character. It is generally agreed by critics that Locke’s ideas influenced Shelley; therefore as readers we are to believe that the Creature is not inherently good or bad, but forced into his wrathful behaviour as a result of the suffering he endures. The abandonment of the Creature by Victor Frankenstein enables the Creature to develop morally independent of a parental figure.
The lessons he lear