Responsibility In Frankenstein

In Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, Victor Frankenstein creates a creature that murders Victor’s younger brother, William, then frames Justine Moritz for the crime. Justine and Victor in addition to the creature believe that they are responsible for the death. Credible literary critics have written critical reviews of the case surrounding the murder from social, spiritual, feminist, and political perspectives. The perspectives characterize Victor, Justine, and the creature in terms of the theme of responsibility along with their impacts on the internal and external conflicts in the novel. The theme of responsibility shows that Victor is the character who is culpable for William’s murder and Justine’s execution because he unjustly uses his power.

The creature takes advantage of Justine and socially causes injustice. A literal read of the story reveals that the creature frames her by placing William’s portrait “securely in one of the folds of [Justine’s] dress” (Shelley 145). However, such evidence is “circumstantial” and would be too simple for the creature who claims to have learned how “to work mischief (80, 145). When literary critic Criscillia Benford from Ohio State University wrote about Justine’s case to discuss literary and social frames in Frankenstein, she suggests that the creature has a more elaborate plan. She claims that using the object, the creature “elicits the coherent narrative that functions as the frame through which Justine’s grief and confusion...are assimilated as evidence...ensuring that Justine is legally and socially recognized as William’s murderer” (Benford 330). Therefore, the creature actually frames Justine by using the social structure to make Justine appear guilty, which leads the court to legally declare her responsible for the crime. This more advanced explanation is a more convincing argument based on literary critic Colene Bentley’s argument about how Shelley supports political communities that make decisions based on “impartial standards of justice rather than by sentiment” (Bentley). Therefore, the court in Frankenstein represents a community that allows the social frame to dictate the ruling, not precise evidence, which allows the creature to embrace his power over Justine.
Victor is actually responsible for the creature’s actions because Victor socially victimizes the creature. Josh Bernatchez, a literary critic who wrote about the “moral divide between the innocent-victim and the culpable-torturer,” explains that the creature is actually the “victim of torture” and not the torturer (Bernatchez 214, 216). He further explains that the real torturer is Victor because he “can extend no sympathy to the creature of acknowledge responsibility for [the creature’s] suffering” (214). Like how Benford explains that the creature victimizes Justine, Bernatchez explains that Victor victimizes the creature. In the story, the creature claims that he became evil because he is “hated by all mankind” (Shelley 147). Therefore, Victor tortures the creature by neglecting him and allowing humanity to him, which ruins his social frame and makes him appear evil. As Benford claims, the monster is seeking revenge on humans, so he ruins Justines social frame by making everyone believe “Justine is monstrous” (Benford 330). The creature’s revenge occurs through the same means as Victor’s torture: becoming a monster because of a ruined social image. Therefore, Victor is responsible for the creature’s actions because Victor did not follow his social responsibilities.
Victor also does not handle his social responsibilities to Justine because he refuses to inform the court that she is innocent. Editor Diane Telgen suggests that Victor does not speak up because “he fears to be disbelieved and thought insane” (“Frankenstein 188). Such reasoning is based on a literal interpretation of Victor’s narration: “My tale...would be looked upon as madness” (Shelley 73). On the other hand, Virginia Brackett, the chair of the English department at Triton College, offers a more complex explanation in an essay that take a new criticism approach to Frankenstein. Brackett argues that Victor’s name is ironic because it sounds like “victory,” yet he fails to use his knowledge to save Justine; she suggests that he is unable to communicate because he does not identify “as the creator’s monster” (Brackett). Therefore, Bracket suggests that God views Victor as a monster because Victor creates evil being that bring destruction and death into the world. Beyond accepting that his social frame would be ruined by telling the story of the creature, Victor would destroy his spirituality by accepting that he is a monster to God, which prevents him from taking responsibility in Justine’s trial.
Victor is truly a monster because he becomes a creator himself and uses his power irresponsibly. Virginia Brackett refers to Victor’s process of becoming a creator as “usurping God’s...position” and altering the natural order (Brackett). Betty Bennett, a deceased professor and doyenne of Mary Shelley scholars, relates Frankenstein to a religious myth to explain that when Frankenstein usurps God’s power, “it could be for good or evil” (Bennett). However, regardless of his intentions he does ruin the order of humanity, and he creates evil in the world. Prior to the trial when Victor visits the area of William’s death, he saw “the wretch, the filthy demon to whom I had given life...He was the murderer” (Shelley 69-70). Victor himself describes the creature as a monstrous evil being for killing William and Justine. Therefore, Victor’s attempt to usurp the power of God leads to a villainous murderer. Victor creates evil because he refuses to guide the creature and help the creature become publically accepted to prevent him from becoming a criminal. As the creator, Victor does not take responsibility of the creature, which leads to a malicious monster roaming the streets and murdering people.
In addition to usurping the power of God, Victor seizes the role of women, which politically victimizes Justine.

Critic Colene Bentley in her article about political community calls Justine’s conviction the “miscarriage of justice” (Bentley). The use of miscarriage carries a double meaning: justice wrongfully used and an allusion to a failure for a that fails to result in a childbirth. Virginia Brackett, in addition to her new criticism approach, analyzes Frankenstein from a feminist perspective and explains that Victor attempts to “usurp the reproductive nature of woman” and that taking over Justine’s gender role causes her “to suffer a special victimization” because she represents “fertility and motherhood” (Brackett). Victor does victimize Justine in two ways: first by allowing the creature to kill William, then by refusing to speak up at her trial. Victor unjustly eliminates women because he intends to replace them. Therefore, he does not take the moral responsibility to save the mothers in his life because he believes they are no longer needed in

society.
By victimizing Justine, Victor destroys his community by turning Justine into a monster.

Critic Betty Bennett also connects Victor to a religious myth because the actions of his failure “destroy the larger community” (Bennett). Therefore, by allowing Justine and William to die, Victor allows injustice to proliferate in the community. Critic Criscillia Benford also connects this spread of injustice to the community’s social frames. Benford argues that Justine “broke her natural bonds of obligation because she is monstrous,” which leads the community into recognizing “monstrosity as real, proximate, and ubiquitous” (Benford 330-331). The injustice makes Justine appear to be the monster destroying the community when really Victor is the monster because he causes the injustice. Victor acknowledges that he is evil shortly before he died: “I was cursed by some devil and carried about with me my eternal hell” (Shelley 212). By not properly handling his responsibilities, he becomes a cruel monster himself that kills Justine and

William.
In Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, Victor is responsible for Justine’s execution even though the creature frames her. By making the creature a social victim, Victor causes the creature to seek revenge on humanity, so he frames Justine the same way Victor tortures him: by ruining the social structure. Victor also directly ruins the moral and religious structures in the society by stealing the God and women’s power to create new beings then using his power to victimize Justine and the rest of the community. Victor is the monster because he makes everyone victims by refusing to manage his natural social, moral, and religious responsibilities when he attempts to become a creator and when he neglects to handle the consequences of the creature that he creates.