Throughout the years people have debated the effects that nature and nurture have had on the development, education, and personality of a person. Although many people believe that both nature and nurture take part in the development of a person, I believe that the main factor of a person’s development comes from nurture. One highly debated source for the argument of nature versus nurture is through the creature in Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. The concept of nature versus nurture has been wildly debated through many ways, including Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, a novel in which shows the difference of nature versus nurture on the outcome of someone’s education and behavior.
In the argument of nature versus nurture, nature is argued that a person’s …show more content…
While some might fight that genetic factors influence the creature’s behavior since he was created using parts of a murderer; although some of this is true, it proves nothing because we have no proof that the humans the creature was composed of developed their evil tendencies through genetics, and not through their upbringing. When the creature murdered William, he did not due it out of animalistic instinct, but out of anger towards Victor’s carelessness, thoughtlessness, and cruelty (Pekalski 3). The lack of nurture in the creature’s life caused his cruel behavior and his need to seek revenge on …show more content…
I believe that Victor was to blame for the evil and destruction brought on by the creature; because he never gave the creature a choice but to be evil after casting him away and treating him as a beast. Victor’s hatred towards the creature was apparent since the creature was created when he said, “Be gone! I do break my promise; never will I create another like yourself, equal in deformity and wickedness” (Shelley 166). Although I do not condone the malicious acts done by the creature, I believe that Victor should have taken responsibility for his creation and taught him control, kindness, and love, all things that the creature would be willing to learn in exchange for a companion. So was the creature really the monster in Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein; I think
In the argument of nature versus nurture, nature is argued that a person’s …show more content…
While some might fight that genetic factors influence the creature’s behavior since he was created using parts of a murderer; although some of this is true, it proves nothing because we have no proof that the humans the creature was composed of developed their evil tendencies through genetics, and not through their upbringing. When the creature murdered William, he did not due it out of animalistic instinct, but out of anger towards Victor’s carelessness, thoughtlessness, and cruelty (Pekalski 3). The lack of nurture in the creature’s life caused his cruel behavior and his need to seek revenge on …show more content…
I believe that Victor was to blame for the evil and destruction brought on by the creature; because he never gave the creature a choice but to be evil after casting him away and treating him as a beast. Victor’s hatred towards the creature was apparent since the creature was created when he said, “Be gone! I do break my promise; never will I create another like yourself, equal in deformity and wickedness” (Shelley 166). Although I do not condone the malicious acts done by the creature, I believe that Victor should have taken responsibility for his creation and taught him control, kindness, and love, all things that the creature would be willing to learn in exchange for a companion. So was the creature really the monster in Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein; I think