What role does revenge play in Frankenstein?
Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Word Count: 2000 words
Abstract
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein presents revenge as a central driving force that shapes the narrative structure, character development, and thematic concerns of the novel. This essay examines how revenge operates as both a psychological motivation and a destructive cycle that consumes the lives of Victor Frankenstein and his creature. The role of revenge in Frankenstein extends beyond simple retribution to encompass broader themes of justice, responsibility, and the consequences of abandonment. Through careful analysis of the creature’s vengeful campaign against Victor, the creator’s pursuit of his creation, and the cyclical nature of their mutual destruction, this paper argues that Shelley uses revenge as a powerful literary device to explore the moral complexities of creation, abandonment, and responsibility. The novel demonstrates how revenge becomes a consuming passion that ultimately destroys both the pursuer and the pursued, while raising important questions about justice, accountability, and the nature of moral obligation in human relationships.
Introduction
Mary Shelley’s Gothic masterpiece Frankenstein, published in 1818, weaves revenge into the very fabric of its narrative, making it one of the most significant themes that drive the story from its inception to its tragic conclusion. The role of revenge in Frankenstein operates on multiple levels, serving as both a motivating force for character actions and a destructive element that corrupts the moral landscape of the novel. Shelley’s treatment of revenge transcends simple notions of retribution, instead presenting it as a complex psychological and moral phenomenon that reveals fundamental truths about human nature, responsibility, and the consequences of our actions toward others.
The significance of revenge in Frankenstein becomes apparent from the moment Victor abandons his newly created being, setting in motion a cycle of vengeance that will consume both creator and creation. The novel’s exploration of revenge reflects the Romantic era’s fascination with intense emotions and individual psychology while simultaneously critiquing the destructive potential of unchecked passion. Shelley’s nuanced portrayal of revenge demonstrates how it can emerge from legitimate grievances yet ultimately corrupt those who pursue it, transforming victims into perpetrators and creating endless cycles of violence and retribution. This comprehensive examination of revenge makes Frankenstein not merely a tale of scientific hubris but a profound exploration of moral responsibility and the destructive power of vengeance when justice is denied.
The Creature’s Quest for Revenge
The creature’s pursuit of revenge against Victor Frankenstein forms the central conflict of the novel and serves as the primary mechanism through which Shelley explores the psychological and moral dimensions of vengeance. The creature’s revenge is not born from inherent evil but emerges as a response to Victor’s abandonment and society’s rejection. From the moment of his creation, the creature experiences profound neglect as Victor flees in horror, leaving his creation to navigate the world alone without guidance, protection, or love. This abandonment becomes the foundation for the creature’s sense of injustice and his subsequent desire for revenge. The creature articulates his grievance clearly when he confronts Victor, declaring that his creator owes him happiness and companionship, and that Victor’s failure to provide these necessities justifies his vengeful actions.
The creature’s revenge campaign demonstrates a calculated and methodical approach that reveals his intelligence and his deep understanding of human psychology. Rather than attacking Victor directly, the creature chooses to target those whom Victor loves most, systematically destroying his creator’s capacity for happiness and human connection. The murders of William, Justine’s execution as a consequence, Clerval’s death, and Elizabeth’s murder on her wedding night represent strategic strikes designed to inflict maximum psychological damage on Victor. The creature’s revenge is particularly cruel because it forces Victor to experience the same isolation and loss that the creature himself has endured. Through this mirroring of suffering, Shelley demonstrates how revenge seeks to balance scales of pain rather than achieve true justice, showing how the pursuit of vengeance often perpetuates rather than resolves the original injury.
Victor’s Responsibility and the Moral Foundation of Revenge
Victor Frankenstein’s abandonment of his creation provides the moral foundation that makes the creature’s revenge comprehensible, if not justifiable, within the novel’s ethical framework. Shelley carefully establishes Victor’s culpability in creating the conditions that lead to the creature’s vengeful behavior, demonstrating how the creator’s failure to accept responsibility for his creation sets the stage for the tragic events that follow. Victor’s abandonment of the creature immediately after bringing him to life represents a fundamental violation of the moral obligations that accompany the act of creation. This abandonment is not merely physical but encompasses emotional, social, and ethical neglect that leaves the creature without the guidance and support necessary for proper development.
The novel presents Victor’s responsibility as multifaceted, encompassing both his initial decision to create life and his subsequent failure to care for his creation. Shelley suggests that Victor’s scientific hubris extends beyond the mere act of creation to include his assumption that he could bring life into being without accepting the attendant responsibilities of parenthood and guidance. The creature’s eloquent accusations against Victor reveal the depth of the creator’s moral failure and provide a rational foundation for the creature’s sense of injustice. When the creature demands that Victor create a companion for him, he articulates a reasonable request for companionship that might prevent further violence. Victor’s refusal to fulfill this obligation, based on fear rather than moral principle, further justifies the creature’s perception that revenge is his only recourse for addressing the wrongs committed against him.
The Cycle of Vengeance and Mutual Destruction
The relationship between Victor and the creature evolves into a destructive cycle of revenge that consumes both characters and demonstrates the self-perpetuating nature of vengeance. Once the creature begins his campaign of revenge, Victor becomes equally consumed with the desire for retribution, abandoning his remaining family responsibilities to pursue his creation across continents. This mutual pursuit creates a symbiotic relationship of destruction where each character’s actions fuel the other’s desire for revenge, making it impossible to determine who is the pursuer and who is the pursued. Shelley illustrates how revenge becomes an obsession that takes precedence over all other considerations, including love, family, and personal well-being.
The escalating nature of the revenge cycle in Frankenstein demonstrates how vengeance breeds further vengeance, creating an inescapable spiral of violence and retribution. Each act of revenge provides justification for counter-revenge, making it impossible for either character to break free from the destructive pattern they have established. The creature’s murders of Victor’s loved ones provoke Victor’s vow of eternal pursuit, which in turn reinforces the creature’s conviction that his creator is irredeemably selfish and deserves continued punishment. Shelley shows how this cycle of revenge ultimately destroys both participants, leaving them isolated from all human connection and consumed by their mutual hatred. The novel suggests that revenge, once begun, develops its own momentum and becomes increasingly difficult to abandon, even when both parties recognize its destructive nature.
Revenge as Social Commentary
Shelley’s portrayal of revenge in Frankenstein extends beyond individual psychology to offer broader social commentary on justice, responsibility, and the treatment of marginalized individuals in society. The creature’s revenge can be read as a response not only to Victor’s personal abandonment but also to society’s systematic rejection and prejudice. The novel suggests that when legitimate channels for justice and redress are denied to individuals, revenge may emerge as the only available means of asserting one’s rights and demanding recognition. The creature’s eloquent arguments about his treatment and his right to happiness reflect broader social concerns about inequality, prejudice, and the denial of basic human rights to those who are perceived as different or threatening.
The social dimensions of revenge in Frankenstein also reflect contemporary concerns about the responsibilities of those in positions of power and authority. Victor’s abandonment of his creation can be interpreted as a metaphor for the failure of social institutions and individuals in positions of responsibility to care for those they have brought into being or influenced. Shelley’s treatment of revenge thus serves as a critique of social systems that create conditions of injustice and then fail to provide adequate means for addressing grievances. The novel suggests that when society fails to provide justice and protection for all its members, revenge may emerge as a natural, if destructive, response to systematic oppression and neglect.
Psychological Dimensions of Revenge
The psychological aspects of revenge in Frankenstein reveal Shelley’s sophisticated understanding of the emotional and mental processes that drive vengeful behavior. The creature’s development from innocent being to vengeful monster illustrates how repeated rejection and abuse can transform natural desires for love and acceptance into destructive impulses for retribution. The novel demonstrates how revenge becomes a psychological coping mechanism that allows the creature to maintain a sense of agency and power in the face of overwhelming helplessness and rejection. Through the creature’s articulate expressions of his emotional state, Shelley shows how revenge can provide a sense of purpose and identity for those who have been denied other forms of meaningful existence.
Victor’s psychological response to the creature’s revenge reveals different but equally destructive patterns of thought and behavior. His guilt over the consequences of his creation leads to psychological torment that manifests in illness, paranoia, and an obsessive desire to undo the damage he has caused. Victor’s pursuit of revenge against the creature represents an attempt to restore his sense of moral equilibrium and escape the psychological burden of responsibility for the deaths of his loved ones. However, Shelley demonstrates how Victor’s vengeful pursuit only deepens his psychological suffering and further alienates him from the human connections that might provide healing and redemption. The novel suggests that revenge, while psychologically satisfying in the short term, ultimately exacerbates rather than resolves the underlying emotional wounds that motivate it.
Revenge and Gothic Literary Tradition
The theme of revenge in Frankenstein connects the novel to the Gothic literary tradition while simultaneously innovating upon conventional Gothic treatments of vengeance. Traditional Gothic novels often featured revenge as a supernatural or melodramatic element, with characters pursuing vengeance against clearly defined villains through dramatic and often supernatural means. Shelley transforms this convention by making revenge a psychologically complex and morally ambiguous force that emerges from understandable grievances and legitimate claims for justice. The creature’s revenge is neither supernatural nor inexplicable but rather the logical consequence of abandonment, rejection, and denied rights to companionship and happiness.
Shelley’s treatment of revenge also reflects the influence of Romantic literary traditions that emphasized intense emotion, individual psychology, and the exploration of moral ambiguity. The novel’s presentation of revenge as both understandable and destructive aligns with Romantic interests in the complexity of human motivation and the dangers of unchecked passion. Unlike earlier Gothic treatments of revenge that often concluded with the restoration of moral order through the punishment of evil, Frankenstein offers no clear resolution or restoration of justice. Instead, the novel presents revenge as a force that consumes both the righteous and the guilty, suggesting a more pessimistic view of human nature and the possibility of achieving true justice through individual action.
The Relationship Between Revenge and Justice
One of the most significant aspects of revenge’s role in Frankenstein is its complex relationship to concepts of justice and moral obligation. The creature’s demands for revenge are grounded in legitimate grievances about his treatment and his right to companionship and happiness. His argument that Victor owes him these things as his creator reflects a sophisticated understanding of moral responsibility and suggests that his revenge may be justified as a form of rough justice when legitimate channels for redress are unavailable. The creature’s articulate presentation of his case demonstrates that his revenge is not merely emotional but based on rational principles of fairness and reciprocity.
However, Shelley also illustrates the fundamental difference between justice and revenge through the escalating violence and mutual destruction that characterizes the relationship between Victor and the creature. While the creature’s initial grievances may be legitimate, his methods of addressing them through violence and the targeting of innocents transform his pursuit of justice into something darker and more destructive. The novel suggests that revenge, even when based on legitimate grievances, inevitably exceeds the bounds of justice and becomes a force for destruction rather than restoration. Victor’s counter-revenge against the creature similarly begins with understandable motivations but evolves into an obsessive pursuit that abandons all other moral considerations. Through this exploration, Shelley demonstrates how the pursuit of revenge, regardless of its initial justification, tends to corrupt those who engage in it and create new injustices that require further vengeance.
Revenge as Narrative Structure
Revenge serves not only as a thematic element in Frankenstein but also as a fundamental organizing principle that shapes the novel’s narrative structure and pacing. The revenge plot provides the primary source of tension and conflict that drives the story forward, creating a sense of inevitability and mounting dread as the cycle of vengeance escalates. Shelley uses the revenge theme to create a tight causal structure where each action logically leads to the next, demonstrating how the consequences of Victor’s initial abandonment ripple outward to affect everyone in his social circle. The revenge plot also provides a framework for exploring broader themes of responsibility, justice, and moral obligation within a compelling narrative structure.
The novel’s frame narrative structure, with Walton’s letters surrounding the central revenge story, serves to emphasize the universality of the revenge theme and its relevance to human experience more broadly. Walton’s own ambitious pursuit in the Arctic parallels the obsessive nature of revenge, suggesting that the destructive patterns exhibited by Victor and the creature reflect broader human tendencies toward single-minded pursuit of goals regardless of consequences. The narrative structure also allows Shelley to present multiple perspectives on the revenge theme, from Victor’s self-justifying account to the creature’s eloquent defense of his actions to Walton’s gradually developing understanding of the dangers inherent in obsessive pursuit. This multi-layered narrative approach enriches the novel’s exploration of revenge and demonstrates its complexity as both a personal and universal human phenomenon.
The Consequences of Revenge
The devastating consequences of revenge in Frankenstein serve as a powerful warning about the destructive potential of vengeance and its ability to corrupt even justified anger into something monstrous. The novel demonstrates how revenge consumes not only its direct participants but also innocent bystanders who become casualties in the war between Victor and his creation. The deaths of William, Justine, Clerval, and Elizabeth illustrate how revenge spreads beyond its intended targets to destroy entire communities and families. Shelley shows how the pursuit of revenge transforms both Victor and the creature into isolated, obsessed individuals who lose their capacity for love, compassion, and human connection.
The ultimate consequence of revenge in the novel is the mutual destruction of both Victor and the creature, demonstrating the self-defeating nature of vengeance. Neither character achieves satisfaction or resolution through their pursuit of revenge; instead, both are consumed by the very force they hoped would provide them with justice or peace. Victor dies exhausted and alone in the Arctic, having sacrificed everything in his pursuit of the creature, while the creature is left with nothing but the prospect of continued isolation and the knowledge that his revenge has brought him no relief from his suffering. Shelley suggests that revenge, regardless of its initial justification, ultimately destroys those who pursue it and fails to provide the satisfaction or resolution that motivates its pursuit. The novel’s tragic conclusion serves as a powerful argument against revenge as a means of addressing injustice or achieving personal satisfaction.
Alternatives to Revenge in the Novel
While revenge dominates the central relationship between Victor and the creature, Frankenstein also presents alternative approaches to addressing injustice and conflict that highlight the destructive nature of vengeance by contrast. The creature’s initial attempts to integrate into human society and his peaceful observation of the De Lacey family demonstrate that he is capable of empathy, learning, and moral development when not driven by revenge. His articulate appeals to Victor for companionship and understanding represent attempts to resolve their conflict through communication and compromise rather than violence. These alternative approaches suggest that the tragic outcome of the novel might have been avoided if Victor had been willing to accept responsibility and engage with the creature’s legitimate needs.
The novel also presents positive examples of forgiveness and reconciliation through characters like Alphonse Frankenstein, who consistently offers love and support to Victor despite his strange behavior and obvious distress. The relationship between Victor and Clerval demonstrates the healing power of friendship and loyalty, while Elizabeth’s unwavering devotion shows how love can persist even in the face of mysterious and troubling circumstances. These positive relationships serve as counterpoints to the destructive cycle of revenge between Victor and the creature, illustrating the possibilities for healing and redemption that exist when individuals choose forgiveness and understanding over vengeance. Shelley uses these contrasting examples to emphasize that revenge is a choice rather than an inevitable response to injustice, and that alternative approaches to conflict resolution are both possible and preferable.
Revenge and Romantic Literary Themes
The role of revenge in Frankenstein reflects key themes and concerns of the Romantic literary movement, particularly its emphasis on intense emotion, individual psychology, and the exploration of the darker aspects of human nature. Romantic literature often portrayed revenge as a noble pursuit driven by passionate commitment to justice and honor, but Shelley’s treatment of revenge is more complex and ultimately critical of such romanticized notions of vengeance. The novel demonstrates how revenge, even when motivated by legitimate grievances, can become an all-consuming passion that destroys the moral character of those who pursue it. This perspective aligns with Romantic interests in psychological depth and moral complexity while challenging more simplistic heroic narratives that celebrated vengeful protagonists.
Shelley’s exploration of revenge also reflects Romantic concerns about the relationship between individual desire and social responsibility. The novel shows how the pursuit of personal vengeance inevitably comes into conflict with broader moral obligations and social bonds, forcing characters to choose between their desire for retribution and their responsibilities to family, friends, and society. Victor’s pursuit of the creature requires him to abandon Elizabeth and his father, while the creature’s revenge necessitates the destruction of innocent victims who have no direct involvement in his conflict with Victor. This tension between personal satisfaction and social responsibility reflects broader Romantic anxieties about the relationship between individual freedom and moral obligation, suggesting that the pursuit of personal goals, even justified ones, must be tempered by consideration for others.
The Moral Ambiguity of Revenge
One of the most striking aspects of revenge’s role in Frankenstein is the moral ambiguity that surrounds both the creature’s and Victor’s vengeful actions. Shelley refuses to present revenge in simple terms of right and wrong, instead creating a complex moral landscape where both characters have legitimate grievances and both engage in morally questionable behavior. The creature’s revenge is based on real injuries and denied rights, making his anger understandable and his desire for retribution comprehensible. His eloquent arguments about Victor’s obligations as his creator and his own right to happiness and companionship provide a rational foundation for his vengeful actions that complicates any simple moral judgment.
Similarly, Victor’s pursuit of revenge against the creature, while motivated by grief and a desire to protect others from further harm, involves abandoning his remaining moral obligations and pursuing a course of action that prioritizes personal satisfaction over social responsibility. The novel demonstrates how both characters become morally compromised through their pursuit of revenge, suggesting that vengeance corrupts even those who begin with legitimate claims to justice. Shelley’s presentation of this moral ambiguity serves to critique simplistic notions of justice and retribution while exploring the complex relationship between individual rights, moral obligation, and social responsibility. The novel suggests that the pursuit of revenge, regardless of its initial justification, tends to erode moral distinctions and transform victims into perpetrators.
Revenge and the Theme of Creation and Responsibility
The role of revenge in Frankenstein is inextricably linked to the novel’s exploration of creation and the responsibilities that accompany the act of bringing new life into being. The creature’s revenge against Victor can be understood as a direct response to his creator’s failure to fulfill the fundamental obligations of parenthood and care. Shelley uses the creature’s vengeful actions to illustrate the consequences of abandoning those we create or influence, suggesting that revenge may emerge naturally when creators fail to accept responsibility for their creations. This connection between creation and revenge reflects broader themes about the moral obligations that accompany scientific advancement and technological progress.
The novel’s treatment of revenge also explores the paradoxical relationship between creator and creation, showing how the creature’s vengeful actions ultimately make him more like his creator while simultaneously destroying their relationship. The creature’s methodical approach to revenge mirrors Victor’s own scientific methodology, suggesting that he has learned not only language and emotion from human society but also human patterns of thought and behavior. This mirroring effect demonstrates how revenge can perpetuate the very qualities and behaviors that initially motivated it, creating cycles of similarity rather than resolution. Shelley suggests that revenge, rather than providing justice or satisfaction, often transforms the avenger into a reflection of the original perpetrator, making true resolution impossible and ensuring continued conflict.
The Futility of Revenge
Throughout Frankenstein, Shelley demonstrates the ultimate futility of revenge as a means of achieving satisfaction, justice, or personal peace. Neither Victor nor the creature finds fulfillment through their vengeful pursuits; instead, both become increasingly isolated, obsessed, and morally corrupted by their desire for retribution. The creature’s systematic destruction of Victor’s loved ones fails to provide him with the companionship and acceptance he truly desires, while Victor’s pursuit of the creature only deepens his alienation from the human relationships that might offer him comfort and redemption. The novel illustrates how revenge becomes a substitute for the things we truly need—love, acceptance, forgiveness, and human connection—while simultaneously making those things increasingly difficult to achieve.
The futility of revenge in the novel is further emphasized by the fact that both characters recognize the destructive nature of their pursuit yet find themselves unable to abandon it. Victor acknowledges that his quest for revenge has cost him everything he valued, while the creature admits that his violence has brought him no closer to happiness or acceptance. This recognition of futility without the ability to change course demonstrates how revenge can become a form of psychological addiction that persists even when its destructive effects are clearly apparent. Shelley suggests that revenge, once embraced as a solution to injustice or injury, becomes a problem in itself that requires conscious effort and moral courage to overcome. The novel’s tragic conclusion, with both characters dying unfulfilled and unreconciled, serves as a powerful argument against revenge as a viable response to wrongdoing.
Revenge and the Frame Narrative
The frame narrative structure of Frankenstein, centered on Robert Walton’s Arctic expedition and his letters to his sister, provides an important context for understanding the role of revenge in the novel. Walton’s own ambitious pursuit of glory and discovery parallels the obsessive nature of revenge, suggesting that the destructive patterns exhibited by Victor and the creature reflect broader human tendencies toward single-minded pursuit of goals. Walton’s gradual recognition of the dangers inherent in his own ambitious isolation, prompted by his encounter with Victor and the creature, demonstrates the possibility of learning from others’ mistakes and choosing different paths.
The frame narrative also serves to emphasize the cyclical nature of revenge and its potential to perpetuate itself across generations and relationships. Walton’s initial admiration for Victor’s determination gradually transforms into horror as he witnesses the consequences of the revenge cycle, providing readers with a perspective on the destructive nature of vengeance that the main participants cannot achieve. Through Walton’s ultimate decision to abandon his dangerous pursuit and return to human society, Shelley suggests that the cycle of revenge and destructive obsession can be broken through conscious choice and the prioritization of human relationships over personal ambition. The frame narrative thus provides both a warning about the dangers of revenge and a model for choosing alternative approaches to conflict and disappointment.
Conclusion
The role of revenge in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein encompasses far more than simple retribution, functioning as a complex literary device that explores fundamental questions about justice, responsibility, and human nature. Through her portrayal of the destructive cycle between Victor Frankenstein and his creature, Shelley demonstrates how revenge can emerge from legitimate grievances yet ultimately corrupt those who pursue it, transforming victims into perpetrators and creating endless cycles of violence and suffering. The novel’s exploration of revenge serves multiple functions: it drives the narrative forward through compelling conflict, provides social commentary on justice and responsibility, and offers a profound meditation on the psychological and moral consequences of vengeance.
Shelley’s treatment of revenge in Frankenstein remains remarkably relevant to contemporary readers, offering insights into the nature of conflict, the importance of taking responsibility for our actions, and the dangers of allowing grievances to fester without proper address. The novel’s demonstration of revenge’s futility and its emphasis on the importance of human connection and moral responsibility provide valuable lessons about conflict resolution and the maintenance of social bonds. The creature’s tragic transformation from innocent being to vengeful monster serves as a powerful reminder of how abandonment and rejection can create the very monsters we fear, while Victor’s own moral corruption through his pursuit of revenge illustrates how vengeance ultimately destroys those who embrace it. Through its complex and nuanced exploration of revenge, Frankenstein continues to offer profound insights into human nature and the moral challenges that define our relationships with one another.
References
Shelley, M. (1818). Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.
Baldick, C. (1987). In Frankenstein’s Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity, and Nineteenth-Century Writing. Oxford University Press.
Botting, F. (1991). Making Monstrous: Frankenstein, Criticism, Theory. Manchester University Press.
Butler, M. (1993). Frankenstein and radical science. In T. Morton (Ed.), Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (pp. 302-313). Columbia University Press.
Gilbert, S. M., & Gubar, S. (1979). The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. Yale University Press.
Homans, M. (1986). Bearing the Word: Language and Female Experience in Nineteenth-Century Women’s Writing. University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, B. (1982). My monster/my self. Diacritics, 12(2), 2-10.
Levine, G. (1979). The ambiguous heritage of Frankenstein. In G. Levine & U. C. Knoepflmacher (Eds.), The Endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley’s Novel (pp. 3-30). University of California Press.
Mellor, A. K. (1988). Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters. Methuen.
Poovey, M. (1984). The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer: Ideology as Style in the Works of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, and Jane Austen. University of Chicago Press.