Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Mary Shelley compared to the creature
Comparing Mary Shelley to her monster
How does mary shelley sympathize with the monster
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Mary Shelley compared to the creature
For a modern reader, the creature evokes pity in the end rather than
fear. How do you respond to Mary Shelley’s presentation of the
creature?
Mary Shelley’s presentation that ‘the creature evokes pity in the end
rather than fear’ is a view that is shared by many readers, including
myself. Although naturally, many people would not agree with her
presentation as everyone has a different perspective on the novel’s
events, and everyone will have their own personal view on what
feelings and emotions the creature evokes. Also many people may find
it hard to see past all the evil the creature has committed by
murdering innocent victims that they will find it difficult to pity
the creature and still fear it.
Also people may find it hard to change their views and opinions so
drastically form fear to pity.
There are many reasons which cause me to respond to Mary Shelley’s
presentation of the creature in the same way as she does. From the
first time that the monster is introduced to us (the readers), it is
hard to feel any emotions of pity towards it, as we are immediately
exposed to Frankenstein’s reaction, which is that of horror, fear and
disgust:-
“breathless horror and disgust filled my heart”. Straight-away we are
influenced by Frankenstein’s view as this part of the novel is written
from his perspective.
The creature is the nameless product of Victor’s ambition and
curiosity, and desire of knowledge. He remains anonymous right up to
the end of the novel, and is referred to as a “monster”, a “demon”, a
“devil”, “abhorred monster”, “miserable existence” and many more. It
is ironic that one refers to him as a “monster” or a “demon”, when he
starts out more innocent and humane than many of the other characters.
Half way through the novel, when the creature confronts Frankenstein
and tells him his tale, is when I and many readers begin to feel
emotions of pity towards the monster and the initial feelings of fear
disperse. His tale of learning to communicate, and learning the
language of humans, and of the De Lacey family evokes these feelings,
and by the end of his tale and the novel, we have gradually learnt to
pity him more as we learn of his “miserable existence” and of his
constant loneliness due to being rejected from anyone he meets.
By the end of the novel, we have learnt all about the creature and we
know of everything that has occurred leading up to this point. There
are many reasons which cause me to pity the creature in the end.
Firstly, he was abandoned immediately when he came into existence by
In Lisa Nocks article appropriately titled “Frankenstein, in a better light,” she takes us through a view of the characters in the eyes of the author Mary Shelly. The name Frankenstein conjures up feeling of monsters and horror however, the monster could be a metaphor for the time period of which the book was written according to Nocks. The article implies that the book was geared more towards science because scientific treatises were popular readings among the educated classes, of which Shelley was a member of. Shelley, whose father was wealthy and had an extensive library, was encouraged to self-educate, which gave her knowledge of contemporary science and philosophy, which also influenced Frankenstein as well as circumstances of her life.
After the day that Victor’s monster comes to life his creator runs away in disgust at the creation he has made, leaving behind a lost creature looking for its place in the world. As the monster
Creature or Monster? How does Shelley's presentation of the Creature and Frankenstein create sympathy or horror at different stages of the novel? Who is the real monster? The novel "Frankenstein" was written by Mary Shelley as a teenager during the 19th century.
...ces and the reactions he chose to have. The book serves as a moral, if the monster had been given proper attention and guidance he could have been accepted and become ‘good’ but since society chose to outcast him and treat him cruelly, he mimicked those behaviors and likewise in turn treated humanity with cruelty. The development of the monster was extensive in the emotional, psychological and intellectual areas, the dualism of his personality gives him a double-identity which leaves us to question whether he truly became like Adam or Satan.
Imagine an eight-foot-tall, misshapen human child. You might complain that this is contradictory - but do it anyway. Imagine some sort of humanoid being with the mind of a human child in an eight-foot body, green with a nail in its head if you want. This is what Frankenstein's creature is. Frankenstein's creature is mentally a child, and we see its evolution through traditional child development in the course of its narrative. But the creature is the only member of its species, and therefore its narrative can be taken to represent the history of an entire species - the creature's first experiences can be viewed as an amalgam of creation myths.
The creature was created with the intention of goodness and purity but because of this, he wasn’t equipped to deal with the rejection of his creator. After Victor Frankenstein’s death, Robert Walton walks in to see the creature standing over his friend’s lifeless body.
It is my view, that the Creature may be seen from two main perspectives, on the one hand he may be seen as a “Monster”, “a fiend”. of unparalleled barbarity” and on the other he may be seen as a victim. with whom the reader may sympathise. Out of the three narratives in the book, the one which occupies that major part of the book, that of Victor Frankenstein. It is from his perspective that we are imparting most of the evidence which may lead to consider the Creature as a ‘Fiend of unparalleled barbarity’.
if one was to look at the underlying themes in the novel, they would realize that
The Monster attempted to coexist with humanity, dealing with violence and abuse, only to be rejected and alone, much like how Satan is rejected by God. He is hoping that the wicked nature of the humans was not common between them all, until he meets the family which sways his opinions about the race. This fruit of hope soon turns rotten when he decides to befriend them only to be rejected again saying “from that moment on I declared everlasting war against the species” (Shelly 124) after their reaction. It was at this moment where he lost his innocence, seeing the truth that all humans are violent, only to make himself more lonely, which is seen in Paradise Lost from Satans rejection from God after they were defeated. Satan is a fallen angel,
was a naive child at the beginning of the novel, but by the end the
The monster of the novel is often misattributed with the name, “Frankenstein.” However, Victor Frankenstein can ultimately be considered the true monster of this tale. His obsession would lead to the corruption of his soul and the creation of two monsters—one himself, and the other, the creature. In attempting to take on the role of God, nature would become a monster to Victor and destroy his life. These elements of monstrosity in Frankenstein drive the meaning of its story.
...that had to become evil in order to get what he wants. It was Frankenstein and the society’s fault that the monster actually turned into a monster, they didn’t reach out to him, and instead they froze him out of the society because of his looks.
Mary Shelley's book, Frankenstein, deals with the major dilemma of the creation of man. Rousseau deals with the topic of abandonment in Emile, which stemmed the thoughts of creation for Shelley in 1816 upon reading Rousseau's opinions. Rousseau blames the problems that children inhibit solely upon the parents shoulders (Mellor). Mary Shelley is able to relate to this statement on a personal level due to the parenting (or lack of) within her life. This in turn leads to a broader question concerning Shelley's Frankenstein; is the monster really the sole person to blame for his murderous actions? According to Rousseau's theory, the monster is not the sole problem. Victor Frankenstein is his creator or "father" figure thus giving him the responsibility of his monster.
Satan is the core of Milton’s master piece and no matter how he is interpreted; the overall complexity of his character cannot be overlooked.