Does the creature purposefully harm and kill others (and also try to force Frankenstein into making another tortured being because he wants her to be ugly and face the same torment as him so she’ll have to be with him; showing that he is just as if not more willing to commit the same horror as the Dr. just to feel slightly less alone)? Yes.

Does that make him a monster? Yes.

I mean seriously guys he’s still a fucking monster.

The doctor crossed a line and did something monstrous, but he didn’t know how bad it would be. The creature, however, knows exactly how bad it is, and still wants to do commit the sin again because—by incel-esque logic—this new cursed being will have to love him. If you’re willing to knowingly subject another person to indefinite torture just to feel slightly better yourself, you might be a monster.

Serial killers often had bad childhoods, but that doesn’t excuse their monstrous actions. Frankenstein’s creature had a rough life, but he’s still a monster.

[–] AngryPancake@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think that's a bit unfair. Frankenstein had no sympathy for his creation whatsoever, he ran away after creation and when he first met him he called him monster and wouldn't listen to his story. The creature had to watch humans from afar and to learn to live, being secluded in a hut for at least a year.

He wanted to bring joy to the family which he called protectors, he helped them when they couldn't see them and was constantly afraid of being discovered. It took him so much courage to confront the family for which he gained affection only to be attacked and they fled quickly after.

In his final speech of the book, his sentiment is basically that. All his life he wanted to converse with other humans and be included in society, but he was not allowed, because everyone called him a monster and screamed at his appearance.

Of course murdering other people was the wrong approach to this situation, but he was equipped with weapons and used them when his emotions were too strong for rationale.

[–] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago

Fair, it’s also been a really long time since I read the book, so perhaps my opinion has become overly biased from just having this argument over and over again and is no longer a true assessment of the source material

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

If you’re willing to knowingly subject another person to indefinite torture just to feel slightly better yourself, you might be a monster.

sounds like a lot of parents who choose to bring humans into this world to me, but no one calls them monsters

[–] Bgugi@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

no one calls them monsters

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 days ago

It strikes me that Frankenstein, as a work of literature does try to teach a moral lesson.

To me, it feels wrongheaded to take the lesson "Hey, maybe if you're a being born of ultimate neglect, maybe don't do any vengeful murders" from this work.

"If you're going to make a person, which is a thing people do all the time, it is your responsibility to not neglect or abuse them" is probably closer to the truth.