Theme Of Sympathy In Frankenstein

Although Shelley revealed how humanity defines monsters and how to fix the problems associated with it, why does this happen to humanity? Many, including myself, would have enough faith in humanity to believe that it can decide for itself what is monstrous without having to be taught how to do so correctly. Yet as seen through history, finding monsters is not as easy as it seems, but why is this true? Why can humanity not see innocence past difference and evil in similarity? Despite revealing to humanity the problem with finding monsters, Frankenstein also indirectly reveals why this occurs. When reading Frankenstein, readers invoke many emotions: fear, anger, and sympathy while at the same time trying to read everything from an analytical

point of view (Bissonette, 109). As such, emotions come to clash with analysis as the characters of the story are evaluated.

The human mind finds itself over ridden with analysis and unable to deduce characterization correctly resulting in one of two scenarios. So, the improper labeling stems from improper characterization. Through this, the monster is once again able to provide insight into how humans act upon the world.
In letting emotions take control of the story, Frankenstein becomes a story about a boy searching for love from his father (Bissonette, 108-109). Of the many emotions the monster brings to the reader, the first and strongest emotion brought out is sympathy. As a lost and hurt soul longing for acceptance, readers latch on to the monster wishing they could provide the compassion he is searching for. In this moment, sympathy overwhelms the readers as they begin to despise Victor Frankenstein for what he has done. He, in the minds of the reader, has become a father who has abounded his child in the

wild left to die alone. As such, the monster is now a child who struggles forward trying to find acceptance from a father who never felt love for his creation due to its imperfections (Bissonette, 108-109). Readers with this view also view all of those who mistreated the creature as villains as well for they were not willing to help a loving soul because of it differences. In invoking strong feelings of sympathy, these readers are able to see those who mistreat the monster, Victor and villagers, as monsters in the beginning of the novel as Shelley intended. However, their sympathy proves to be a blinder as the story progresses. With deep attachment to the monster, these readers seemingly ignore his immoral actions to still view Victor with hate as if he is the only monster of the narrative. However, the monster truly becomes a monster as he murders for revenge, leaving these readers lead astray from the truth through sympathy. With these readers, they allow monster to roam as long as there is sympathy to be found in their backstory. In life, they are compassionate to differences but allow many monsters to walk free without being treated for what they really are.
For those who forget deep emotional attachment and view the novel through an analytical standpoint alone, Frankenstein is and is always a monster through the novel. The aspect of the creature being a son longing for its father is forgotten as these readers view the creature as an abomination of life (Bissonette, 108-109). The creature features an origin story that defies all laws of nature and god. A human has overstepped his bounds to create a walking mass of human flesh. As such, nothing good can come about this creation except disaster. This point is only solidified as monster progress through the novel becoming more evil as the plot progresses. In committing murder after murder, these readers view the killings as an “I told you so moment” knowing something like this would have occurred. Although these readers are able to see the monster as a monster at the end of the novel, they represent the villagers who saw the creature as a monster because of its difference (Cohen, 16) Even when the creature was innocent, it was an abomination in their eyes. This poses the problems already pointed out where these readers find monsters out of anything different despite its action and intentions. In life, these people will find many monsters in the world who are not really monstrous but overlook many who are really monsters because they are not different.
In reference to life and in reading Frankenstein, both approaches, emotion and analytical analysis, prove to have their advantages and disadvantages.

As such, the problem society has with evaluating character stems from allowing emotion or pure analysis to guide an impression instead of combining the two (Bissonette, 109-110). In order to fix this problem, a conscious effort must be taken in evaluating characters. As with the example of Frankenstein, the beast is initially brought to this life without his consent and then left to die on his own by his creator (Shelley, 51). Considering ethics, it is unethical what Victor Frankenstein did. He defied nature and brought to life an abomination without considering the consequences of his actions. However, this does not mean the creature deserves to be considered an abomination because of its frightful origin. Those who use solely analysis to view character need to stop and evaluate the situation from an ethical and emotional standpoint. The creature could not control his bring of existence into this life, his looks, or his abandonment. As such, he is like a deformed child brought into this world that is immediately abandoned. The child has committed no wrong and deserves no mistreatment as such. It is the parents who were not ready to take care of the child that preformed an unethical act. Yet, those who view the monster using on the analytical approach place all of Victor’s unethical actions upon the monster as he was the

result of such actions. To reverse what has happened, the monster needs to be destroyed (Bissonette, 108-109). If these people take the time and apply emotion and ethics to situation and similar scenarios as such was done, they can bring forth emotion in their evaluation to receive a better characterization overall. For those who let emotions take over, analysis can be brought in to bring forth better characterization. To bring in analysis, the characteristics that make the beast a possible monster should not be forgotten. In focusing on the beast’s origin, appearance, and actions, the overwhelming sympathy felt can be toned down to provide a clearer picture (Bissonette, 111). This would allow these people to accurately characterize in that they would view the creature as a lost soul at the beginning of the novel and a monster at the end. Their emotion would be cleared enough as to see the actions the beast performs as monstrous in the books plot.
As with Frankenstein, the world presents many monsters other fictional monsters that act the same way as Frankenstein does. In the book The Knights of the Dark Renown, there is a fictional character named Groundsel. Groundsel is the anti-hero the novel. Featuring a unique past, Groundsel grew up in a hard life of slavery. He was beaten, mistreated, and considered way less than a human being by his master. In a fit of rage after having enough of the mistreatment, Groundsel rapes his master’s wife and then proceeds to murder his master and the master’s son (Gemmell, 121-123). No matter what mistreatment he underwent, these actions show a man who has no morals or conscious as he will do anything and perform any act necessary to get what he want. He does just that by then gathering up and becoming the leader of a bandit group along the forest road (Gemmell, 123). Through killing, looting, and robbing the road, he is able to achieve unimaginable wealth fulfilling his great desire to be rich. He is greedy, selfish, dishonest, and overall evil for money is all that he desires and loves. However as the novel progresses, this lust for money is slowly forgotten. His heart through plot progression is softened as Nauda portrays him as a hero in one of his stories (Gemmell, 153-155). As he embraces the good inside of himself, he begins to become a more likable selfless character who ends up sacrificing his life as the ultimate selfless act (Gemmell, 278). In this way, Groundsel is a reverse Frankenstein’s monster. Instead of being good the monstrous, he was monstrous then good. As such, the rules Frankenstein teaches about characterization apply here as well. The analytically inclined will view Groundsel as a villain through the whole novel because of his early actions and difference to the normal while the emotional will forget all evil with his final act. However, both emotions and analysis must be used to get the correct characterization of viewing him as an anti-hero who was a villain that ended up performing a great act of selflessness in the end.
The characterization critique Frankenstein properly works in evaluating the monster of the fiction al world, but what of the real world? On April 20, 1999, a great tragedy occurred in the United States. Two students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold came to Columbine High School with the intent of committing an act of terrorism (Hong, 861). Sadly, this shooting was the first of its kind. As such, many lives were lost that day before the two shooters took their own lives. Being a dark moment for humanity, many asked why did this happen? Upon physiological review of the shooters, a reason could be seen. Eric and Dylan both underwent psychological counseling for depression, social anxiety, and impulsivity. Eric featured a high degree of narcissism. He was violent, aggressive, paranoid, and liver an overall life of trouble (Hong, 862). It could be seen how his psychological profile lead to this catastrophe. However, Dylan was the almost complete opposite. In his profile overview, he was shown to be very reserved and timid. He featured what is considered social-phobia as he was overly sensitive, depressed, suicidal, and very lonely in life (Hong, 862). It is the opinion of many that Dylan’s psychological profile became the way it was because of consistent bullying from peers in the school system as it has been shown many times that bullying plays a part in school shooting disasters (Austin, 283-284). Considering this, Dylan can be viewed as a real life Frankenstein’s monster (Bissonette, 108). It should be noted that I not intend to undermine the vents of the shooting Dylan committed an act of atrocity far worse than that of any monster in the fictional world. However, Dylan does exhibit characteristics similar to those of the monster in Frankenstein. As such, characterization rules taught by the novel apply. Despite his crime, some can find sympathy to be found for Dylan in performing research. He featured social anxiety and was bullied as a result of being different. The bullying proceeded to only make his condition worse leading to him follow Eric’s aggressive tendencies to perform the terroristic attack. In taking a sympathetic view, many can feel sorry for Dylan in how his life played out, however his act is so atrocious that most follow the path of using only analytical characterization in this case. This has resulted in pure hatred towards Dylan as many cannot even begin to forgive his actions. However as Frankenstein teaches, only both emotion and analytical together produce a correct characterization. In applying both, Dylan becomes a horrible villain who was created into what he ended up being. In invoking this characterization, humanity can move forward with a lesson and purpose to prevent future attacks rather than view what happened as a freak event where two pure evil individuals simply lived out their destined evil purpose.