Monsters are often portrayed as the villain, there is only two options either the cause or the effect. Frankenstein by the author Mary Shelley is a book that talks about a young man named Victor Frankenstein whose vision was beyond what was believed to be possible and because of this, Victor turned the impossible possible.
Often when doing things out of the ordinary there should always be a conscious thought that the outcome of something might be different than what it was believed to be. For example, the monster in Frankenstein at first was everything Victor wanted. The monster was something different and it fit the purposes even though Victor did not like how he looked it was still a big accomplishment for him. He had created something extraordinary …show more content…
The monster was something different, it was like a child who was in need of love and the extremely rough rejection from what he considered his father in this case. Victor had a huge impact on him, it somehow shape him into the monster he became. “All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us” (shelley 176). When talking about monsters it is hard to think clearly because there is always exceptions. In this case, the argument could be that the monster never asked to be created therefore he should not be blamed for his actions, he did not know any better. Because of this the only person to really point the blame to would be Victor because it was his responsibility to teach the monster how to act and behave the proper way. Other things that are consider in favor of the monster are that he does not have the capacity to think like a human. Humans are not born with that sense of compassion and remorse, those qualities are learned throughout time. Yet on the other hand, even humans who are raised in a perfect environment, with the perfect family, and are surrounded by love often become what are considered monsters. So who is to blame in that
Often when doing things out of the ordinary there should always be a conscious thought that the outcome of something might be different than what it was believed to be. For example, the monster in Frankenstein at first was everything Victor wanted. The monster was something different and it fit the purposes even though Victor did not like how he looked it was still a big accomplishment for him. He had created something extraordinary …show more content…
The monster was something different, it was like a child who was in need of love and the extremely rough rejection from what he considered his father in this case. Victor had a huge impact on him, it somehow shape him into the monster he became. “All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us” (shelley 176). When talking about monsters it is hard to think clearly because there is always exceptions. In this case, the argument could be that the monster never asked to be created therefore he should not be blamed for his actions, he did not know any better. Because of this the only person to really point the blame to would be Victor because it was his responsibility to teach the monster how to act and behave the proper way. Other things that are consider in favor of the monster are that he does not have the capacity to think like a human. Humans are not born with that sense of compassion and remorse, those qualities are learned throughout time. Yet on the other hand, even humans who are raised in a perfect environment, with the perfect family, and are surrounded by love often become what are considered monsters. So who is to blame in that