Who is the Real Monster in Frankenstein
Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Introduction
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein has long been recognized as one of the most influential works in Gothic and Romantic literature. Published in 1818, the novel is a profound exploration of ambition, morality, and the consequences of unchecked scientific pursuit. At its core, the narrative asks a timeless and provocative question: who is the real monster in Frankenstein? While the novel explicitly presents a grotesque being created by Victor Frankenstein, Shelley complicates this image by questioning the boundaries of monstrosity. Is the creature inherently monstrous because of his unnatural origin and frightening appearance, or is Victor Frankenstein the true monster because of his moral negligence and relentless ambition? The answer to this question requires a deep analysis of both the creature’s actions and Victor’s role as a creator, mentor, and moral agent.
The tension between physical monstrosity and moral responsibility remains central to understanding the novel’s thematic structure. The narrative challenges readers to look beyond superficial appearances and interrogate the moral and ethical dimensions of monstrosity. By portraying the creature as both sympathetic and vengeful, Shelley complicates the binary distinction between villain and victim. At the same time, Victor Frankenstein’s arrogance, irresponsibility, and failure to accept accountability suggest that the true monstrosity resides not in the creature’s form but in the human heart. Through a careful analysis of Victor, the creature, and the society that rejects them, it becomes clear that Frankenstein does not offer a singular answer but instead constructs monstrosity as a mirror reflecting human failures and fears.
Victor Frankenstein as the Real Monster
Victor’s Obsession with Knowledge and Ambition
Victor Frankenstein’s intellectual ambition and obsessive pursuit of scientific discovery form one of the most compelling arguments for his role as the real monster. Shelley presents him as a man driven by a thirst for knowledge that transcends moral and ethical considerations. His obsession with unlocking the secrets of life blinds him to the broader consequences of his actions. As he himself admits, “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge” (Shelley, 1818, p. 38). This acknowledgment highlights the moral danger inherent in his scientific quest. Unlike Prometheus, who stole fire to empower humanity, Victor’s ambition is selfish, serving his ego and pursuit of personal glory rather than collective benefit. His failure to balance innovation with ethical responsibility positions him as the true architect of tragedy in the narrative.
The monstrous aspect of Victor’s ambition lies not in the pursuit of knowledge itself, but in his inability to consider the consequences of his experiments. Instead of nurturing his creation, he abandons it at the moment of birth, repulsed by its physical form. This abandonment exposes his deep moral failure. By seeking to play God, Victor usurps the natural order but refuses to accept the paternal responsibility that comes with creation. His actions suggest that true monstrosity resides not in unnatural existence but in the reckless exercise of power without accountability. Shelley’s critique of scientific hubris thus positions Victor as a cautionary figure whose flaws make him a greater monster than the being he brings into existence.
Victor’s Failure of Responsibility
Another key reason Victor emerges as the real monster lies in his abdication of responsibility. After the creature’s birth, Victor flees in terror rather than providing the care and guidance necessary for the being to navigate life. This immediate rejection shapes the creature’s trajectory, transforming a being capable of compassion into one consumed by vengeance. Victor’s role as a negligent creator mirrors parental abandonment, amplifying the ethical weight of his failure. As the creature explains, “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend” (Shelley, 1818, p. 84). This statement underscores the causal link between Victor’s neglect and the creature’s descent into violence.
Victor’s moral culpability deepens as he refuses to take responsibility for the deaths caused indirectly by his creation. Instead of confessing his role or warning others, he prioritizes his reputation and denies accountability. For example, when Justine is falsely accused and executed for William’s murder, Victor remains silent, fully aware of the truth. His silence, rooted in cowardice, leads to unjust suffering. Such decisions highlight his selfishness and lack of empathy, qualities that make him monstrous in a moral and ethical sense. Shelley presents Victor not as a tragic hero, but as a figure whose arrogance and negligence set into motion a cycle of destruction that he refuses to interrupt.
The Creature as a Sympathetic Figure
The Creature’s Innocence and Humanity
In contrast to Victor, the creature embodies innocence at the moment of his creation. Despite his grotesque appearance, his initial state is marked by curiosity, vulnerability, and a longing for human connection. He educates himself by observing the De Lacey family, learning language, morality, and empathy through indirect instruction. His intellectual and emotional development demonstrates his capacity for human feeling and rational thought. Shelley emphasizes this humanity when the creature pleads, “I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel” (Shelley, 1818, p. 87). This biblical allusion situates him as a figure deserving of compassion and guidance, much like Adam in Genesis.
The tragedy lies in the creature’s inability to overcome societal prejudice. His grotesque appearance ensures that he is rejected by all who encounter him, regardless of his inner goodness. When he approaches De Lacey, who is blind and therefore free of visual prejudice, he is momentarily accepted. However, once the rest of the family discovers his form, they drive him away with violence. This rejection confirms that the creature’s monstrosity is constructed not by his essence but by human cruelty and prejudice. Shelley thereby challenges readers to consider the social dimension of monstrosity and recognize the moral failings of those who refuse to look beyond appearances.
The Creature’s Turn to Vengeance
Although the creature ultimately commits violent acts, his actions are better understood as responses to Victor’s rejection and societal exclusion. The murders of William, Henry, and Elizabeth emerge from his growing bitterness and isolation. These crimes are monstrous in a literal sense, yet they are also expressions of despair and vengeance rooted in suffering. Shelley carefully portrays the creature’s moral conflict, ensuring readers understand his violent acts as products of social and personal abandonment rather than inherent evil. The creature himself articulates this moral complexity: “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend” (Shelley, 1818, p. 84).
Importantly, the creature seeks companionship and even offers Victor the chance to prevent further tragedy by creating a female counterpart. His request is not for domination but for belonging. When Victor denies him this possibility, the creature’s despair transforms into rage. His vengeance is thus the product of Victor’s repeated failures, making the creator more culpable than the creation. In this sense, Shelley positions the creature not as a true monster but as a tragic victim whose humanity has been systematically denied. His monstrosity is contingent, not inherent, making him a mirror of human prejudice rather than a reflection of inherent evil.
Society’s Role in Constructing Monstrosity
Prejudice and Fear of the Other
The role of society in defining monstrosity cannot be ignored. Shelley’s novel critiques the human tendency to equate physical deformity with moral corruption. Every encounter the creature has with humans confirms this prejudice. From the villagers who attack him to the De Lacey family who reject him, society projects monstrosity onto his form without recognizing his humanity. This dynamic exposes a broader commentary on how fear of difference and otherness contributes to exclusion and violence. Shelley uses the creature as an allegory for marginalized individuals who are judged not for their character but for their appearance or social position.
The societal construction of monstrosity thus reinforces Victor’s culpability. If Victor had guided and defended his creation, the creature might have been integrated into human society. Instead, Victor’s abandonment leaves the creature vulnerable to societal rejection, which ultimately drives his violent transformation. The novel suggests that monstrosity emerges not from the creature’s body but from the social structures that stigmatize and exclude difference. This critique remains relevant in modern contexts, where prejudice and marginalization continue to define who is labeled “other.” Shelley thereby shifts the question of monstrosity from an individual trait to a collective moral failure.
The Collective Responsibility of Humanity
In addition to highlighting prejudice, Shelley assigns responsibility to humanity as a whole. The creature’s repeated attempts to seek acceptance expose the cruelty of a society that refuses to embrace the unfamiliar. His experience underscores the destructive power of collective judgment. While Victor may be the most directly responsible for the creature’s suffering, society as a whole contributes to the cycle of violence by perpetuating rejection and fear. By portraying the creature as both sympathetic and dangerous, Shelley forces readers to examine the consequences of collective cruelty and question their own complicity in systems of exclusion.
This broader interpretation of monstrosity complicates the novel’s central question. The true monster is not simply Victor or the creature, but rather humanity’s collective capacity for cruelty and prejudice. Shelley suggests that monstrosity is not inherent in individuals but emerges from human choices and social dynamics. The novel thereby challenges readers to reflect on their own moral responsibilities and to recognize how social rejection can transform innocence into vengeance. In this way, the question of who is the real monster in Frankenstein becomes not just a literary inquiry but an ethical challenge to all of humanity.
Conclusion
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein resists simplistic answers to the question of who is the real monster. By juxtaposing Victor’s ambition and negligence with the creature’s suffering and vengeance, the novel complicates the boundaries between villain and victim. Victor emerges as a moral monster because of his reckless pursuit of knowledge and failure to accept responsibility for his creation. The creature, by contrast, embodies humanity’s potential for goodness but is corrupted by rejection and isolation. Society, too, bears responsibility for constructing monstrosity through prejudice and exclusion.
Ultimately, Shelley’s novel suggests that monstrosity resides not in physical form but in moral failure. The real monster is the one who abandons responsibility, denies compassion, and perpetuates cruelty. Whether in the figure of Victor Frankenstein or the society that rejects the creature, monstrosity is revealed as a mirror of human weakness. By posing this question, Shelley challenges readers to reconsider their definitions of humanity and monstrosity, reminding us that the true horror lies not in the unnatural but in the unchecked flaws of human ambition and judgment.
References
Shelley, M. (1818). Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.
Mellor, A. K. (1988). Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters. Routledge.
Baldick, C. (1987). In Frankenstein’s Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity, and Nineteenth-Century Writing. Clarendon Press.
Levine, G. (1973). The Ambiguous Heritage of Frankenstein. In G. Levine & U. C. Knoepflmacher (Eds.), The Endurance of Frankenstein. University of California Press.
Botting, F. (1991). Making Monstrous: Frankenstein, Criticism, Theory. Manchester University Press.