Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9610217">I am not defending Frankenstein. But I have a different interpretation (and I don't think it is that unusual of an interpretation). He is morally culpable like I said. I am just saying, I think by the time the Creature reads Milton, he is no longer a child and has moral understanding. So I think both can be called villains. They are very complicated characters. But I don't think the complexity makes either less evil. The creatures actions are certainly understandable. That is what makes him so sympathetic. We feel the Creatures pain and loneliness. But I don't think Shelley was excusing the Creatures actions. Just for the benefit for people who haven't read the book, at this stage, he murdered a a child, Frankenstein's little brother William. Then he lets Justine, the family servant, take the blame and she is executed (and the Creature knows this, and he is smart enough to frame her). This he does to persuade Frankenstein to make him a companion. After he destroys this second creature and refuses to continue, the creature kills his friend Henry. Then he murders Elizabeth (Frankenstein's bride; in some editions she is also his cousin). The creature demonstrates, not just intelligence but understanding as he does these things. He knows how all this will make Frankenstein feel. He has enough empathy to understand the consequences of his actions.I am not so sure that him committing murder to motivate Frankenstein is evidence he is still a child. I am not dismissing this an an argument. If that is your interpretation of the book, I think this is a fair point to raise (it is subjective and I don't think your interpretation is out of line). But the more I read the book, the less I am able to excuse the Creature's behavior.</blockquote>

Verification