this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025
826 points (98.7% liked)
Facepalm
3399 readers
145 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The worst people in real life have both an abused background and an organic brain/genetic problem.
The monster's abnormal reaction to rejection (becoming a serial killer), I read that as he's probably got a bad brain/nature too. And why wouldn't he, given how he was made?
Generically speaking, nurture is the common thread. In this book, and in my experience.
I can't get behind blaming genetics/nature for people being good/bad. All that reminds me of is phrenology.
Right, and that fits with what the profs are saying here: that modern sensibilities view monsters (even serial killers) as victims.
Yes, because its accurate.
Dahmer was a horrifying killer. He also had a functionally absentee father, and his mother was self-medicating to deal with her mental health issues and developed a substance abuse issue. He was left alone at home for long periods of time, making him both physically and socially isolated. His biggest connection with his dad was being interested in the anatomy of dead animals, and his dad showed him.how to bleach bones and overall encouraged it - but not really engaging further. In school his behavior was considered bizarre, heavily attentions seeking, began drinking in high school, etc...
Everyone around him failed him in some way, and he became an absolute monster.
It doesnt change the fact that he did horrible things. It doesnt mean he didnt become a monster.
Recognizing that trauma led to that, though, is a good thing. It means we can better identify, understand, and address earlier.
If we reworked the monsters experience, Frankensteins engagement with him, how he was presented to the townspeople and how they reacted to him, would he have turned out differently? I would say yes. And I think its important for us to recognize that.
Yes, Dahner is probably a good example of what I'm talking about: the conjunction of mistreatment and organic brain disorders. His parents denied scientists at Fresno permission to examine his brain before cremation, so we can't be sure exactly what was wrong with him, but we know he was an alcoholic and the son of a mentally ill mother.
Charles Whitman is another: beaten by his father, lost his brother to murder, plus a tumour on his amygdala.
The point the English professors are making is that the new generation of students see monsters entirely as victims of circumstances. It's an ideological belief.
No, thats the point the Sun (a shit rag of a paper) was trying to get you to think. The professor who made the comment the Sun abused to make a shitty tweet said that students consider it more a creature than a monster, and how it shaped his teaching, and he himself sees the novel as a question of sentience and medical ethics.
No.