NationStates Jolt Archive

for those of who have read the book, you will understand this better than most. We all know the movies do a good job of painting the monster (never actually named) as the killer, but the book speaks otherwise (at least to me).


In what might be the best argument against humans playing god, so to speak, Mary Shelly creates a freakishly real scene for us in late-renaissance era Europe. Dr. Victor Frankenstein creates his monster, and, in his horror, abandons it because of its hideousness. The monster experiences nothing but rejection and begins to turn on humanity. In fact the only time he finds acceptance is in the home of a blind man. But he is eventually driven out from there. By the end of the novel, the monster had murdered at least three that I can remember.

This begs the question - is the monster the killer or is it Frankenstein?

The monster did the killing, this is true, he has the blood on his hands as well as the precognitive ability to plan and preform the killings. He was able toe watch his query, stalking them unknown until he struck.

But, Frankenstein created the monster. He gave it life and then rejected it, teaching it hatred.

Who bears the ultimate responsability in murder?

I'd be willing to say that Vic is the one who is at least partially responsible for the killings. This of course doesn't completely absolve his creation of it's crimes, as the creation did what it did for its own reasons, (sometimes selfish.)

Victor was the killer. He created the monster and he didn't take responsiblity even after he found out what the monster had done. Victor is the only one with whom you can actually place blame on.

I agree in part, but I would place more blame with a society that values appearance so highly that someone who appears to be radically different is shunned simply for that appearance rather than any one individual.

Victor was the killer. He created the monster and he didn't take responsiblity even after he found out what the monster had done. Victor is the only one with whom you can actually place blame on.

But the problem here is that Victor created the monster with free will. The monster had the open choice to not commit any acts of violence, btu he still did. At every moment in the story, the monster is making his own decisions. Wouldn't blaming Victor be like blaiming a mother if her son grows up to be a ciminal?

Yeah I would also say that victor is responsible for the murders. He even felt guilty and responsible for the deaths. I would go as far to say that Victor Frankenstein is the monster in the book.

Originally posted by BLAIRgistania
But the problem here is that Victor created the monster with free will. The monster had the open choice to not commit any acts of violence, btu he still did. At every moment in the story, the monster is making his own decisions. Wouldn't blaming Victor be like blaiming a mother if her son grows up to be a ciminal?

I would have to say not completely. Although it was the Monster's actions, the monster had no influence or teaching as to how to behave in public. Victor is similar to a parent and the monster a child. I saw the Monster to be a soul that was deprived of attention.

By the way, I think this is a great topic. It is a subtle alternative to debates about abortion and paternal rights yet it has some of the same fundamental ideas. :)

I would have to say not completely. Although it was the Monster's actions, the monster had no influence or teaching as to how to behave in public. Victor is similar to a parent and the monster a child. I saw the Monster to be a soul that was deprived of attention.

By the way, I think this is a great topic. It is a subtle alternative to debates about abortion and paternal rights yet it has some of the same fundamental ideas. :)
Why thank you.

I think that when Victor created the monster, he immediatly understood what the horror was and had the monster locked up as to never "infect" (if you will) society. The monster broke out and actually made the attempt just to live peacefully. But, everywhere he went, he was cast out and violence was acted upon him. he responded the only way he knew how, with violence back to the people. So, the monster did have social training - it was by society at large. And, if I can be so bold as to judge, Society failed the monster in showing him the path to peace.

I think that part of my indictment of the creation is the fact that we can be pretty sure that it did show some form of regret at some point.

Orignally posted by BLAIRgistania
I think that when Victor created the monster, he immediatly understood what the horror was and had the monster locked up as to never "infect" (if you will) society. The monster broke out and actually made the attempt just to live peacefully. But, everywhere he went, he was cast out and violence was acted upon him. he responded the only way he knew how, with violence back to the people. So, the monster did have social training - it was by society at large. And, if I can be so bold as to judge, Society failed the monster in showing him the path to peace.

That is a very good point. So i would have to agree that is in part Victor's fault and in part Society's fault. This is a great lesson. This explains the theory behind why children have parents.

The monster was sorry for its actions, but did continue them nonetheless.

That is a very good point. So i would have to agree that is in part Victor's fault and in part Society's fault. This is a great lesson. This explains the theory behind why children have parents.

It would be a solid argument for parental responsability in the raising of a child. If the child is violent or ill-bred for social situation, one may want to look at how the parent raised the child.

On the side note: how far do we think society is responsable for imparting good 'morals' (to use the term) on our children.

Who is the killer(s): the monster and the villagers...
Simple.... the monster Killed people... the villagers killed the monster.
The villiagers can argue that it was in defense, but even in those times, they had due process... the villagers took matters into their own hands and pronounced Verdict.

The Monster: It killed... (and I think the person Victor used was a previous killer, but I'm not sure.) put it in today's context... a dog goes on a rampage and kills some (not all) people... it's put to death... the owner is held responsible, but it's the animal who is labled as a killer. Why do I use an example of a dog? some can argue that the monster, (literally born again) would not know good from evil, while others can argue, that the creature was not human... but a construct... a thing. all of it's short (new) life, it received nothing but negative feedback, (abandonment by Daddy[Dr. Frankenstien] and everyone it came across.) the two people it encounted that had treated him like a person, one lived... the other died... the monster was not taught any social standing so it can be argued that the monster committed manslaughter (accidental death). but the monster did kill. repeatedly.

Victor? all he's guilty of is being a bad parent. sad but true. Had he shown love and caring for his "child" who knows how things would be different. the the sad truth is Victor is not responsible for the killings... that's like saying the people guilty of murder are not guilty... but their parents are.

I always thought that the monster was a delusion of a schizophrenic Dr. Frankenstein.

That'd make him the murderer either way, and also explain why an altogether crappy book is a classic- it's "subtle."

Its been a few years since I read it.

But doesn't the monster ask Frankenstein to make him a wife for companionship. And when he refuses the monster leaves saying something ominous like "I'll see you on your wedding day."

Meaning that although the monster killed his wife (Elizabeth?), Frankenstein was partially to blame for her death due to his non compliance. And the fact that we would agree that his resistant to the monster's coercion is admirable, Frankestein still has to face responsibility for his action.

The other murders, iirc, were simple acts of revenge on the part of the monster. But I forget if they occured before or after the monster learns the difference between right and wrong. If it was before, then trying to damn the monster would be like trying to damn a dog. If it was after then the monster should take responsibility. (Again note it has been years since I read the book so my facts are probably wrong).

There is also the matter of Victor abandoning his creation. Even though he never expected the havoc the monster would wreck in his wake, he does have to accept that it is because of him his loved ones died. This is not the same as a putting the blame on a parent of a serial killer. Victor abandoned the monster with no moral compass, but with above average capabilities, both physical and mental. Victor must have recognised this fact, but abandoned him. So the monster was essentially a fully grown man, without anything to base ethics on.

for those of who have read the book, you will understand this better than most. We all know the movies do a good job of painting the monster (never actually named) as the killer, but the book speaks otherwise (at least to me).
In what might be the best argument against humans playing god, so to speak, Mary Shelly creates a freakishly real scene for us in late-renaissance era Europe. Dr. Victor Frankenstein creates his monster, and, in his horror, abandons it because of its hideousness. The monster experiences nothing but rejection and begins to turn on humanity. In fact the only time he finds acceptance is in the home of a blind man. But he is eventually driven out from there. By the end of the novel, the monster had murdered at least three that I can remember.
This begs the question - is the monster the killer or is it Frankenstein?
The monster did the killing, this is true, he has the blood on his hands as well as the precognitive ability to plan and preform the killings. He was able toe watch his query, stalking them unknown until he struck.
But, Frankenstein created the monster. He gave it life and then rejected it, teaching it hatred.
Who bears the ultimate responsability in murder?
:rolleyes: wow, you must be proud of finally understanding a book 187 years after its publication.
(BTW the movie of 1994 with Kenneth Branagh also shows that the true monster is not the creature but Dr Frankenstein.)

:rolleyes: wow, you must be proud of finally understanding a book 187 years after its publication.
(BTW the movie of 1994 with Kenneth Branagh also shows that the true monster is not the creature but Dr Frankenstein.)
*sigh*

I read the book about a month ago for the first time. I'm also trying to bring some semblance of intellignce back to NS.

Thanks for starting this thread.

I think many in the book bear some level of 'guilt', of complicity in the series of events. But mostly Victor...

Victor for deserting his creation - his child- leaving a damaged being, with no morals or ethics. He had obligations to that child that he failed thoroughly to uphold.

I'm having to write essays on Frankenstein now... this will probably be one of the questions I end up answering. Damn book.

I'm having to write essays on Frankenstein now... this will probably be one of the questions I end up answering. Damn book.
Cheer up, I can think of far worse books to have to do.

In fact I'm doing one now :headbang:

Who's the real killer? My opinion, society. If one group or community had taken and made the effort would the monster continued on his path of destruction?

True, there is something to be said about the good Dr. taking on some of that same responsibility. But, had society embraced the monster, would the monster still have killed and exacted his revenge on the Dr.?

Pffft. Society is never a killer. The responsibility of killing lies always in the one who commits it.

Pffft. Society is never a killer. The responsibility of killing lies always in the one who commits it.
Read The Ragged Trousered Philantropists?

To my recollection, wasn't the "monster" named Adam, since he (Dr. F.) was "playing God"? Maybe I'm confusing the movies with the novel. And didn't Dr. F. use a defective brain? Wouldn't the "monster" be found not guilty by reason of mental defect (in today's courts)?

To my recollection, wasn't the "monster" named Adam, since he (Dr. F.) was "playing God"? Maybe I'm confusing the movies with the novel. And didn't Dr. F. use a defective brain? Wouldn't the "monster" be found not guilty by reason of mental defect (in today's courts)?

no, the monster never had a name, at least in any of the books. The book bears the name of the doctor that created the life. Also, the monster was actually very very intelligent. If you've ever read it, the monster speaks eloquently after just a few weeks of learning the language (German is what I think he learned). In Mel Brook's Young Frankenstein, the monster's brain is defective as well as the portrayal in most of the movies.