Similarities Between Frankenstein, Invisibility And The Nameless Dread

Lee Zimmerman, author of Frankenstein, Invisibility and the Nameless Dread uses many resources to explain multiple theories on the novel Frankenstein, one being the theory that Victor’s childhood and upbringing are not what they seem. He reveals to Walton that “No human being could have passed a happier childhood than myself. My parents were possessed by the very spirit of kindness and indulgence.” (Shelley 43). Zimmerman continues on to explain how Victor may be defensive and actually could have been raised by a careless father, which contradicts what he had said earlier in the novel.

It is widely agreed upon that Victor and his creation are each other’s double. This means that what happens to Victor will happen to the Monster, generally

speaking. Victor’s upbringing consisted of one parent, his father. The Monster’s upbringing would have as well, with Victor acting as his “father”. Zimmerman believes this, and explains that if the Monster experienced a “childhood” without a parent, Victor must have as well. The Monster is physically abandoned at “birth”. Could Victor have been emotionally abandoned as well?
In the essay, Zimmerman references another critical analysis written by Anne K.

Mellor. Mellor writes that Victor’s life is a “classic case of a battering parent who produces a battered child who in turn becomes a battering parent” (2). She also questions why this succession should start with Victor, because battering parents were once battered children. This provides evidence that Victor’s father was not completely there for Victor, based on Victor’s behaviors.

Victor’s describes his father solely based on his appearance to other people, someone who holds authority and does not have any other interests besides his position in their society. Zimmerman also states that “Alphonse’s conviction that all emotions can be trumped by rational appeals to duty and instrumentality is typified in his response to Victor’s looming despair…” (2). In other words, he believes that Alphonse is so rational and logical that it caused Victor to grow up and act similarly, as he acts without desire, spontaneity, and control over his troubling emotions (Zimmerman

2).
The author also points out that Victor stresses the importance of early relationships, referring to the one he has with Henry Clerval. Victor insists that “the companions of our childhood always possess a certain power over our minds…” (Shelley 1831, 176). What he means by this is that maintained childhood friendships have the potential to be more important psychologically more important than adult friendships. This is true for Victor as during their adulthood he and Henry are still great friends.
I agree with Zimmerman’s point that Victor and the Monster are each other’s counterparts, and that they share similar traits throughout the novel.

I also agree with the theory that a battering parent leads to a battering child. However, I believe that the author of the essay did not elaborate on Victor’s emphasis of early relationships. If Victor believes that childhood friendships are so important, why doesn’t he care to give his “son” the best chance at making some, and abandoning him due to his imperfections? Also, Victor only had one good friend as a child that was not part of his family. It may have been a great relationship with someone, but nonetheless, it is still only one. It seems that Alphonse Frankenstein did not care to give his son important early friendships. This leads us, as readers, to the conclusion that Victor has become so focused on being rational that he is following in his father’s path and has become emotionally unavailable to his child. Victor’s actions as a “parent” shed light on his own upbringing, and his father’s style of

parenting.
All of this evidence matters to the plot of the story because it reveals that Victor may have been unreliable as a narrator. Readers already know that Victor is unpleasant, and downright whiny. If Victor had said that his childhood was perfect and his parents were always kind and indulgent, but evidence from the text proves otherwise, what else could he have been lying about? This changes our view of him, making us come to the conclusion that Victor is not trustworthy as a narrator.