He only realises this though when he observes the De Lacey family. The fact that Frankenstein had gone through all of the trouble of creating the Creature would have made the reader think that he knew what his duty of care towards it should be. There is a sense of responsibility that
He is rejected by the De Laceys and Frankenstein and ponders the question: ‘Am I not alone, miserably alone?’. The monster is represented as the dark side of Frankenstein. Shelley depicts Frankenstein as the real monster of the novel. Frankenstein appears to look like a nice person but Shelley creates him as a blasphemous person whose arrogance and obsessions with science end up costing him dearly. In contrast, the monster appears to be a nasty, unapproachable beast but actually appears to be well-educated and is knowledgeable about the world around him.
In the novel Frankenstein, author Marry Shelley depicts character Victor Frankenstein as a scientist with a strong passion for forbidden knowledge and finding the answers to life through science. Though his intentions are good this leads him to the creation of a monster. Throughout the novel Frankenstein is constantly encountered by obstacles that test his passions for science and responsibility for his creation. For Victor it seems that the choice to abandon the monster is the easier path, rather than taking care of his creation. In the beginning of the book, right after the creation of the monster, Victor fled his home to get away from the creature, only to return and find that it had escaped.
One of the ways Shelley explores the dark side of the human psyche is the suppressed and forbidden knowledge which Victor Frankenstein is hungry for. We can see this when Frankenstein states 'how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge'. However it will ultimately lead to a happier life that the man 'who believes his native town to be the whole world'. This drives Frankenstein to exceed the boundaries of science hence create new life. Shelley portrays the desire of knowledge as lust which, if left unhindered, can drive a man to peril.
Victor represents society intent on pushing the boundaries and themonster represents the product of this curiosity; of technology gone wrong;technology without ethics. “Accursed creator! Why do you form a monster so hideousthat even you turn away from me in disgust?” The monsters constant rhetoricquestioning addresses these ethics and illuminates the monster as a symbol of innocence in the face of corruption. Victor’s relationships also allow insight into themoral dilemma of creation. Victor’s positive family relationship is juxtaposed againsthis spite for the monster, a somewhat child of his.
Often times, the monster would carry out a good and selfless deed, only to be shunned by the recipients. An example was when he tried to save a girl after she fell into a river, only to be shot in the shoulder by her companion. This was when the monster knew that no matter how benevolent he was, humans would never look beyond his appearance, for they rather let their prejudice rule over their decisions than to face an abomination. In a moment, the monster’s impression of humans changed and he desired revenge on Frankenstein for making him an abomination. If only Frankenstein had given his creation a chance, the unjust treatments would have never happened.
Frankenstein wanted to recreate his mother, but instead he made a creature comprised of the socially repressed elements of Frankenstein (the monster) and his wish for his mother. Frankenstein's creature comprises all of the unacceptable traits of humans, those we usually suppress. These traits may actually be a representation of those traits that Frankenstein wishes he had. Mary Shelley tries to humanize the position of the impossible monster to imagine what it would be like for a monster to sustain personhood when everybody around him treats him as an utterly outcast to society. Shelley is trying to show that the creature is not inherently monstrous, but
In other words, what influences human development more, inheritance, or experience? For many years, theorists have argued about the role nature and nurture play in shaping a person’s identity. In the past, some claimed that a person’s genetic traits encoded the characteristics they would acquire and others asserted that environmental factors and emotional events were more influential in shaping a person’s personality. Today, however, most people agree that both nature and nurture equally affect development and shape personalities. In fact, “a growing number regard heredity and environment as inseparably interwoven, each affecting the potential of the other…” (Berk, 2010, p. 5).
Nature versus Nurture Introduction Many studies have been completed on the controversial topic of nature and nurture. The nature-nurture debate stemmed over the question of what makes a person who they are. Theorists questioned if a person’s behaviors and personality traits come from influences of their surroundings or if the person is born that way. Nature is a person’s natural qualities, referring to biological factors, or the traits that an individual inherits in their genes. Nurture refers to childhood experiences or the way an individual is raised.
Nature Versus Nurture Defined Nature versus nurture is a debate between scientists and researchers about which is the most influential in human development: nature or nurture? Nature is defined as the genetic inheritance of an individual. Nurture is defined as the environmental experiences, both biological and social) that an individual experiences during his or her life-span. Some people believe that nature is the most influential on development whereas others believe nurture is the most influential (Santrock, 2010). Those who favor the nature side believe that an individual grows in a chronological order that is affected by evolution and genetics.