Abbey Young, the author of the 2013 article titled “Nature vs. nurture in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”, supports both sides of the argument and provides separate claims as to why each one is valid. Young stated that Victor was a victim of nature whereas the creature was a victim of nurture. The argument that she made for nurture is useful when it comes to my hypothesis as it supports that nurture has a higher influence on a lifeform than nature. However, she also makes a valid claim about nature having a strong influence which goes against my hypothesis. Young talks about the author, Mary Shelley’s, choice of words used to describe each character and how exactly it relates to the nature vs. nurture debate. She doesn’t, however, state whether or not one side of the argument was stronger than the other, making it rather difficult to see whether or not she agrees that nurture has a stronger influence than nature or vice versa. When examining the character Victor Frankenstein, Young insinuates that Frankenstein’s desires and actions are a result of his ‘powerful’ heritage (nature) by stating that “rich ancestral history is part of Victor’s nature, being no exception to this prestigious …show more content…
heritage, and Victor ultimately becomes the victim of his nature.” In this statement, Young is saying that Frankenstein is a victim of his own nature.
She also goes on to imply that Frankenstein’s downfall was due to his need to be as powerful and controlling as previous men in his family had been. She does this by stating that “the idea of this overwhelming familial need for power and control present in Victor’s nature foreshadows Victor’s ultimate downfall.” Young’s statements regarding the influence that nature has on Frankenstein may lead one to believe that a person’s nature as well as the traits and desires that reside within one’s family history and genes have a stronger influence on a lifeform than nurture. This doesn’t go with my hypothesis as Frankenstein and his actions were largely influenced and impacted by his nature, not by his
nurturing. Young explains the nurturing present in Frankenstein’s life and what kind of “compassionate environment Victor was privileged with throughout his childhood.” This statement could potentially be used to show that Frankenstein was influenced by the nurturing that he was subjected to as he would be able to do the things he desired and go through with anything he set his eyes upon, although this would go against the argument that the critic is making. The critic is arguing that it is in Victor’s nature to be this way inclined rather than due to any type of nurturing that he may have been subjected to. Other than this, not many statements or explanations are provided that could possibly support the idea that nurture could have had a potential impact on how Frankenstein turned out in the end. Young does state, however, that “Nurture works against Victor’s natural, dangerous desire to be in a position of power; however, it cannot overcome it, and Victor falls prey to his natural needs and innate instincts.”
In Frankenstein, various themes are introduced. There are dangerous knowledge, sublime nature, nature versus nurture, monstrosity, and secrecy and guilt. I chose a main theme as nature versus nurture. Nature is some traits that a person is born with, and nurture is an environment that surrounds a person. The novel indirectly debates whether the development of individual is affected more by nature or by nurture through Victor and the Monster.
... of his brother and Justine, finally ending in his own demise. This showcases some of the issues of the Enlightenment, a time where the boundaries of science and religion were defined. The character of Victor Frankenstein reflects the enlightenment scientists who wanted to discover the secrets of life, leading to what he discovered ultimately destroying him. There is no way that, according to the definition of Romanticism, Victor could ever be happy, since rationality is not a sufficient source of happiness and meaningful life. Even though he did succeed in unraveling the mystery of creating life, he was not going to be happy with it because it was found through reason. The Romantics see the Enlightenment as drawing away from nature. In Young Frankenstein, the Romantic qualities of death, rebirth, and sexuality renew these characters and change them for the better.
“I now hasten to the more moving part of my story. I shall relate events that impressed me with feelings which, from what I was, have made me what I am” (Shelley 92). Frankenstein’s Creature presents these lines as it transitions from a being that merely observes its surroundings to something that gains knowledge from the occurrences around it. The Creature learns about humanity from “the perfect forms of [his] cottagers” (90). Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein offers compelling insights into the everlasting nature versus nurture argument. Her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote, “Treat a person ill, and he will become wicked.” Shelley believes that the nurture of someone, or something, in the Creature’s case, forms them into who they become and what actions they take. While this is true for Frankenstein’s Creature, the same cannot be said about Victor Frankenstein.
The theme of nature vs. nurture is highly debated in the field of psychology and is quite a prevalent topic of the novel Frankenstein. Nature vs. nurture is a psychology term related to whether hereditary genes or the environment
A predominant theme in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is that of child-rearing and/or parenting techniques. Specifically, the novel presents a theory concerning the negative impact on children from the absence of nurturing and motherly love. To demonstrate this theory, Shelly focuses on Victor Frankenstein’s experimenting with nature, which results in the life of his creature, or “child”. Because Frankenstein is displeased with the appearance of his offspring, he abandons him and disclaims all of his “parental” responsibility. Frankenstein’s poor “mothering” and abandonment of his “child” leads to the creation’s inevitable evilness. Victor was not predestined to failure, nor was his creation innately depraved. Rather, it was Victor’s poor “parenting” of his progeny that lead to his creation’s thirst for vindication of his unjust life, in turn leading to the ruin of Victor’s life.
“Allure, Authority, and Psychoanalysis” discusses the unconscious wishes, effects, conflicts, anxieties, and fantasies within “Frankenstein.” The absence of strong female characters in “Frankenstein” suggests the idea of Victor’s desire to create life without the female. This desire possibly stems from Victor’s attempt to compensate for the lack of a penis or, similarly, from the fear of female sexuality. Victor’s strong desire for maternal love is transferred to Elizabeth, the orphan taken into the Frankenstein family. This idea is then reincarnated in the form of a monster which leads to the conclusion that Mary Shelley felt like an abandoned child who is reflected in the rage of the monster.
Are nature and nurture required when creating a person? In the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the nature vs. nurture discussion is put to the test by the actions of the main character Dr. Frankenstein's creation: a monster. In the novel Dr. Frankenstein is enthralled with the scientific creation of life and creates what he thinks will be a human but actually turns out to have the makings of a monster. Dr. Frankenstein is terrified by his creation and abandons it by running away and leaving it locked up. The monster breaks out of Dr. Frankenstein's confines and goes into the world to explore in his surroundings and hates his creator for not caring for him. By looking at environmental effects on a child's intellectual ability to learn, and a child's inherent sense of direction it is apparent that at birth the human mind is a blank slate.
The beginning of Frankenstein’s dream started as a young man, Victor’s interests lie in science, chemistry, and the balance and contrasts of life and death. Acting as a hypocrite, Victor explains how parents should be there to teach you to become great, “The innocent and helpless creature bestowed on them by heaven, whom to bring up to good, and whose future lot it was in their hands to direct to happiness or misery, according as the fulfilled heir duties towards me” (Shelley 16). Victor says that his parents play a big role in how their child turns out; if the parents treat you bad then the child will come out bad but if he learns from good then he will come out to be a perfect little angel.
Frankenstein was written by Mary Shelley and is a gothic horror. It is an important book because it tells us about when scientists and doctors started to experiment with bringing back the dead. I will look at arguments for both sides of the question. This is an important question because there is a strong argument for both sides and in a lot of modern films about him he is portrayed as a villain who like nothing more than killing and lightening.
Andrew Lustig proposed a great question to the readers of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, “How far should we go in out efforts to alter nature, including human nature? As stewards of God’s creation what are our responsibilities?” (Lustig 1) This question results in theme of nature vs. nurture in the novel. The nature vs. nurture debate is an important topic in Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein. The two central characters, Victor Frankenstein and the creature that he creates; both, characters were raised differently. The nature and the nurture of their upbringing can be a cause of why they are, the way they are. Victor and his creature are subject to very different nurturing styles. Shelley also incorporates the representations of light and fire. This representation is key to the nature vs. nurture discussion in the novel.
As Victor Frankenstein recounts his informative tale to a seafaring Robert Walton, he makes it known that he was a child of nobility; however it is sadly transparent that, combined with insufficient parenting, Victor’s rare perspective on life pushes him towards a lifestyle of conditional love. Children are considered symbolic of innocence, but as a child Victor’s arrogance was fueled by his parents. With his family being “one of the most distinguished of the republic,”(Shelley 17), Victor’s parents saw him as their “plaything and their idol, and something better-their child, the innocent and helpless Creature bestowed on them by Heaven, whom to bring up to good, and whose future lot was in their hands to direct to happiness or misery, according as they fulfilled their duties towards me,”(19). “The Social Order vs. the Wretch: Mary Shelley's Contradictory-Mindedness in Frankenstein Sylvia Bowerbank.” Bowerbank, "The Social Order vs. the Wretch", knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articles/bower.html.
In Frankenstein, the monster and Victor are both put through many depressing and hurtful situations. I think that the monster was the true victim. He was rejected by everyone he came across from the day he entered life. His creator was never there to teach him right from wrong or responsibility. And also, the monster's soon-to-be wife was killed before his eyes. These agonies are what make the monster more of a victim than Victor Frankenstein does.
As previously mentioned, Victor’s childhood was full of parental support, and even included his parents “adopting” another child into their home (Shelley 35). The creature’s “parent” Victor, abandons him, leaves him to fend for himself, which results in the creature feeling angry toward Victor. The creature had a resentful, distant relationship with his creator, while Victor’s upbringing could not have been more different. Shelley uses the story of Victor’s childhood; the adoption of Elizabeth, the stories of the De Lacey children to compare to the creature and the “upbringing” Victor is denying him. The opposition in parenthood is displayed between Victor and the creature are displayed by the way Shelley writes the creature’s last quotes after Victor’s death “Once I had falsely hoped to meet with beings who, pardoning my outward form, would love me for the excellent qualities I was capable of unfolding” (Shelley 239). The opposition lies in the monumental difference in parenting between Alphonse and Caroline Frankenstein, and Victor Frankenstein. Perhaps if the creature had been cared for more adequately, the story would’ve ended much
... may result in the imbalance of that which sustains us and our subsequent destruction. While Victor can control nature and bend it to his will in unnatural ways, once confronted with the natural elements, none of his science and ingenuity can save him. Throughout the novel Victor goes to nature for solace, expecting nothing but return, and expects the same throughout the novel, right to his own demise. This lesson is not only applicable to when Frankenstein was written, at an explosively progressive period during the Industrial Revolution, but also to all generations and their relationship with human progression and nature preservation.
Many people who have done despicable deeds in history would seek to blame, or at least offer by way of explanation, terrible things that may have occurred in their childhoods. Shelley is sure in the case of Frankenstein to spell out clearly that this is not applicable in this case. As Victor himself explains to Robert Walton, “No human being could have possessed a happier childhood than myself. My parents were possessed with the very spirit of kindness and indulgence” (Shelley, 1998, p...