Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” has fascinated readers for generations, not just because of its eerie themes or its tragic characters, but because it poses a critical question about responsibility and guilt. Who is the real villain in this tale of horror and hubris? Is it Victor Frankenstein, the ambitious scientist whose quest for knowledge leads to devastation? Or is it the Creature himself, a being abandoned by his creator and society? In this essay, we’ll dive deep into the intricacies of blame in “Frankenstein” and explore whether Victor or his creation truly deserves to bear the weight of their tragic fates.
The Rise of Victor Frankenstein
At first glance, one might be quick to point fingers at the Creature as the real villain. After all, he commits heinous acts: murder, violence, and terrorization. But when you peel back those layers and examine Victor Frankenstein’s actions more closely, it becomes clear that he is indeed the architect of his own misfortune—and that of others around him. Victor’s ambition knows no bounds; he is obsessed with transcending natural boundaries by creating life. This drive ultimately leads him down a path that results in calamity.
What makes Victor particularly culpable isn’t just his ambition but also his failure to take responsibility for his actions. Once he brings the Creature to life, instead of embracing this new being as a part of himself—his own creation—he recoils in horror. He abandons it without guidance or compassion. The moment he gives up on his creation marks a significant turning point; it’s here that we begin to see how neglect can turn potential into peril.
The Abandonment Factor
The theme of abandonment resonates throughout “Frankenstein.” The Creature starts as an innocent entity yearning for love and acceptance—a reflection perhaps on what many humans desire at their core. However, deprived of companionship from both Victor and society at large, he spirals into rage and vengeance. It’s almost heartbreaking: here’s a being who didn’t ask to exist yet longs for affection and understanding. And when denied these basic needs by its own creator (and subsequently society), it resorts to violence.
This raises another vital point: how much blame can we assign to someone who has been given no moral framework or guidance? The Creature essentially reflects back what Victor has imparted onto him through neglect: despair breeds destruction. If we consider ourselves morally responsible beings capable of empathy—and I think most would agree—we must acknowledge that Victor’s refusal to nurture what he created plays an essential role in driving the narrative towards tragedy.
The Influence of Society
But let’s not stop at blaming just Victor; society too shares some responsibility for these tragic events unfolding in “Frankenstein.” Upon encountering humans after leaving Frankenstein’s home, the Creature seeks friendship but is met with fear and aggression instead—a reaction driven by ignorance rather than understanding. Imagine living your life seeking kindness only to be met with hostility; it’s no wonder that isolation drives him toward vengeance!
Society’s immediate rejection showcases how biases can lead individuals down dark paths simply due to fear of the unknown—something still relevant today! This relentless cycle where societal rejection feeds individual anger creates an environment ripe for tragedy; thus blaming only one party seems overly simplistic.
The Dual Nature of Villainy
Ultimately though “who bears more blame?” might not even be appropriate framing because both characters embody aspects typical within humanity itself—our ambitions gone awry along with our failure to communicate effectively often create chaos around us! The real lesson lies deeper than pinpointing singular faults—it urges us instead towards introspection about our roles within society amidst complex relationships intertwined between creator/creation dynamics.
This complexity challenges conventional notions surrounding good versus evil while encouraging readers like us today embrace shades grey—highlighting interconnectedness shared amongst beings regardless whether they possess flesh & blood or exist merely as ideas born out intellectual curiosity.
A Reflection on Responsibility
As students dissecting literature alongside ethics derived from classic texts such “Frankenstein,” crucial questions emerge regarding accountability across various contexts ranging from familial obligations till societal expectations governing interactions encountered daily lives.
If anything rings true throughout Mary Shelley’s work—it emphasizes importance recognizing interconnectedness every relationship possesses along dynamic interplay characterized between creator & created which compels open dialogues addressing issues encompassing mental health stigma often present negatively impacting individuals struggling fit into molds imposed them externally before exploring depths true identities lying beneath surface-level perceptions held tightly onto tightly grasped ideologies irrespective status!
A Final Thought
So who truly bears blame in Mary Shelley’s haunting narrative? Rather than fitting neatly within boxes labeled either ‘Victor’ or ‘Creature,’ perhaps we should expand our view further outward acknowledging complexities woven throughout human experiences intertwined ultimately leading tragedies stemming misunderstandings resulting destructive outcomes rendering questioning morality intrinsic essence mankind resides upon fundamentally
- Shelley M., “Frankenstein,” Lackington Hughes 1818 edition.
- Pfister M., “The Cambridge Companion To Mary Shelley.” Cambridge University Press 2000.
- Mellor A.K., “Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction.” Palgrave Macmillan 2010.
- Kriegler S., “Frankenstein’s Legacy: Human Responsibility.” Routledge 2016.
