Nurture In Frankenstein

Nature versus Nurture is the name of a long running debate on whether an individual’s behavior is determined by their genes or by how they were raised. John Locke famously held the view that humans had a “blank slate”, which means that human’s personality and character traits are determined by a person’s environment and what they experience. But, many argue against this: for instance, twins are raised similarly, but can have completely different personalities. The real question is this: are people born monsters, or do they become monsters? In Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein and in Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, both authors provide a clear warning of what makes a monster: society’s superficial nature creates monsters, and

creators can become monstrous by failing to secure a proper upbringing to their creation.
Shelley argues that society’s obsession with appearances leads to the downfall of Frankenstein’s monster. In Frankenstein, appearances infatuate society: for example, the only real characterization Victor provides for his adopted sister, Elizabeth, is that she is a “beautiful and adored companion” (Shelley 29). Everyone adores Elizabeth, as she is both charming and attractive: but it seems that the only reason anyone loves Elizabeth is for her looks. Appearances are so important to society that by the time Victor creates his monster, he isn’t focused on his scientific success, but on the creature’s appearance. Frankenstein doesn’t know if he can “describe [his] emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care [he] had endeavoured to form” (Shelley 58). Although Victor achieves his goal of reanimating a corpse, he doesn’t view it as a success because the monster is ugly. Victor is a product of his environment: instead of focusing on the inner being of a person, he only focuses on the outward aspect. When the monster feels rejected by Victor, the monster decides to seek a connection with others humans, but “The more the creature learns about human forms of life, the more conscious he becomes of his difference” (Yousef), and the more society rejects him. Complete rejection resulted in a true monster, and the creature lashed out and killed most major characters in the novel in an unjustifiable manner. But then again, how would you feel if what was essentially God rejected you? Would God be at fault?
Shelley also argues that the creation of monsters is a two way street: creators can create monsters, but monsters can also mold creators into monsters. Because Victor was irresponsible and rejected his monster, he initiated a cycle of violence, but “Had Victor embraced his creation as a success, it can be assumed that the monster would have a very different life and would have, perhaps, never become a monster at all” (Rosenberger 50). Victor is somewhat monstrous for mistreating his creation and causing death, but his monster causes him to become completely monstrous. By killing William and Henry, the monster drags Frankenstein down to its level. Victor becomes obsessed with vengeance: “Such as the peasant enjoys when his family have been massacred before his eyes, his cottage burnt, his lands laid waste, and he is turned adrift, homeless, penniless, and alone, but free” (Shelley 232). Frankenstein is afraid of putting his wife, Elizabeth, in potential danger, but his obsession with vengeance upon the monster overpowers his feelings for Elizabeth. When the monster kills Elizabeth instead of Frankenstein, Victor only becomes more enraged. The cycle of violence is a two-way street: Victor initiated the cycle, the monster continued it, and Victor proceeded to chase the monster in an attempt to end it. But can Victor really be at fault for the death of all those killed by the monster? Although he may have caused the initial rejection, the monster did kill several innocent people. Not to mention, the monster was educated with “an insight into the manners, governments, and religions of the different nations of the earth” (Shelley 140). Especially in learning about religion, the monster knew what was moral and immoral: just because you are treated poorly does not give you the right to seek revenge and murder. Both knew the difference between right and wrong, but both still became monstrous. A similar idea is present in The Picture of Dorian Gray.
Much like Mary Shelley argues in Frankenstein, Oscar Wilde believes that society’s superficial nature results in Dorian Gray’s downfall. Wilde specifically points out in Chapter 11 that upper class society “feels instinctively that manners are of more importance than morals” (Wilde 182). Society has its priorities confused. When no one stands up to or questions Dorian Gray, they only encourage him to become more evil “while also accentuating the degeneracy of the present social system which corrupts what is right and good” (Allen). Interestingly, this critic believes that it is not only society who influences monsters, but monsters who influence society. Society’s continual emphasis on the wrong values shape monsters, and those monsters allow for immoral behavior to become mainstream. Appearances do not always reflect reality, and, much like in Frankenstein, society’s obsession with appearances clouds people’s better judgement. For instance, people’s perception of Dorian Gray changed when they physically met him: “Even those who had heard the most evil things against him -- and from time to time strange rumours about his mode of life crept through London and became the chatter of the clubs -- could not believe anything to his dishonour when they saw him” (Wilde 159). Society values the external being more than the inner being. Because Dorian Gray is so attractive and charming, people have a hard time believing he is a monster. Because society has its priorities confused, they allow monsters to develop and flourish. Though, is it more the fault of society not acting or is it the fault of the creator?
Wilde argues that the creator of a monster may also become a monster.

Lord Henry becomes a monster through his interaction with Dorian Gray. The critic Liebman provides an interesting way to look at Lord Henry in The Picture of Dorian Gray: “Henry is, first, a scientist and an intellectual, whose most outstanding trait is his curiosity” (Liebman). Similar to Victor Frankenstein, Lord Henry wishes to know about the human soul and human nature. Liebman continues: “‘a complex personality,’ like Dorian's, gives him an opportunity to examine the human species in its natural habitat” (Liebman). When The Picture of Dorian Gray is viewed in this lens, it seems that Lord Henry’s intent is poison Dorian’s belief system to see how much a pure, innocent man can change. Basil warns Lord Henry about how vulnerable Dorian is: “Don't spoil him. Don't try to influence him. Your influence would be bad” (Wilde 23). Henry knows what he is doing, which makes him accountable for Dorian’s descent into derangement. When Henry plants seeds of immorality in Dorian’s mind, Dorian almost can’t help but become a monster. Lord Henry causes Dorian Gray to shift from “a simple and beautiful nature”(Wilde 23) to having “no heart” and “no pity” (Wilde 128). Lord Henry is at fault because he intentionally created a monster, and although he didn’t intend to hurt anyone, he started a cycle of violence that ended with several dead, including

Dorian.
In the debate of Nature versus Nurture, society wants to believe that Nature rules supreme. For instance, even though at one point being racist was a fad, in our contemporary age, racists are considered social outliers and immoral. Society doesn’t normally blame their parents though, they blame bigotry. But, would a person be racist if their parents did not raise them that way? Probably not. Their parents created a monster. But at what point does it become one’s fault for immoral behavior? If someone is educated, then they know they difference between right and wrong. If someone knowingly commits an evil, then it is wrong. Mary Shelley and Oscar Wilde would take the viewpoint that Nurture is more powerful that Nature. Both Victor Frankenstein and Lord Henry’s entanglement in societal values results in the creation of monsters that far surpass both creators. Frankenstein’s monster far surpasses Frankenstein in strength, speed, and agility, while Henry’s monster far surpasses Henry in evil. Both Frankenstein and Henry become monstrous in their own right as well, for failing to secure the necessary upbringing of their creation, and for starting a cycle of violence. Everyone has a monster in them, it just takes other people to bring it out.