Everyone thinks "frankenstein" is the monster...?

Question

Well in fact Frankenstein is the creator, although in some views he could be considered the monster. It is amusing how everyone associates the "vile insect" to be Frankenstein, when in fact it has no name and Frankenstein is the creators family name.
So do you think it is Frankenstein or his creation who is the "monster"?
Ok, the creation killed and created misery...but ONLY after society rejected him and his kind actions were met with violence.
Yet, Frankenstein created life and abanded it and left it to meet society, with an abnormal exterior. He also destroyed his creations potential companion. Does this mean he is to blame?
Or can we not blame either? Or just human curiosity?

No i have not been drinking...If you don't want to answer don't!!! I do not have a gun to your head!
Yes it is a story-but it resembles lots of key issues in todays society. Like racism and prejudice against people who are "inferior" and we can see a resemblence to when the first human clone is assembled, if it is.
No i do NOT think I am smart or whatever, I am not trying to prove myself...I just wondered. If you have a problem with this question...don't bloody answer...

Answer 1

I think it's a GREAT question. While I've not read the story, I'm familiar with it (who isn't familiar if you've been through public high school?)

Personally, I think that Frankenstein is the monster. He created life, his child if you will, and then left it out there for the world to mold. His monster was a product of nurture vs. nature. While he was built ugly on the outside, he had a pure heart and simply wanted companionship. Society rejected him and was violent toward him, leading him to follow their example and retaliate.

Answer 2

Well, the interesting thing is that the creation ends up understanding that it committed monstrous acts. So, is it admitting that it's the monster? And what Frankenstein did (abandoning his creation) is not viewed by society as a really monstrous act; if the creation were a baby, yes -- but since he was an adult, Frankenstein could get away with taking off.Given that a them of the story's about not meeting society's standards, and how that feeds on itself and destroys the very people that are part of that society, you could say that society has clearly judged the creation as the 'monster.' But what happens in the story is pretty much what Bush is doing in Iraq. He claims to fight terrorism (and has society's support), then kills a bunch of people who's children will grow up to be terrorists because of Bush sanctioning the killing of their parents. Bush is Frankenstein creating a bunch of 'monsters.' If you look at the story that way, the only true monster has to be Frankenstein himself.

Answer 3

Well, within the WWE, that's certainly the precedent. Vince is a very smart man, but he's shown on multiple occasions that he doesn't have unlimited patience with his monster heels when their initial run is over. In the WWE, the monster heel is brought in, usually fresh and new, to decimate the roster for a while until he meets the elite hero, Hogan, Cena, Triple H, whoever. The vast majority of the time, they destroy the hero in the lead-up to the big money match and then lose, making the hero look, well, heroic. It's a time-tested formula the WWE has gone with over and over again, and it works. It really does. The problem is what comes after. Sometimes the now defeated monster heel will face the secondary hero on the show, like Umaga battling Batista at Wrestlemania after losing to Triple H. But more often than not, with that aura of invincibility that comes part and parcel with a strong undefeated streak, Vince loses patience and either turns the heel face or just has them suddenly begin losing to everyone in sight. Tensai is a perfect example of that. Like The Dragon said, it's all in the booking. Kane and Mark Henry have both shown that face turn doesn't have to kill your career. With the right booking, it can work. Henry has done the same comeback at least three or four times now. After a long layoff where just about everyone has forgotten about him, he suddenly and shockingly returns and rips apart a few wrestlers. He then goes on a new undefeated streak before losing a big match against one of the top heroes. This time it will most likely be Ryback. It's a simple, but effective, story. Hell, look at The Undertaker and Brock Lesnar, two guys who very clearly fit the "monster heel" bill once upon a time in their careers, yet who both remained superstars. That's because Vince saw the ability in those guys right off the bat and planned for what comes next accordingly. Lesnar is about as big a monster heel as you can get right now. But the booking with him was complex, and it was smart. He lost to Cena, but he didn't "lose". The match was worked so that it felt like Cena was the huge underdog, and Lesnar emerged from the match the loser but still a powerhouse. He ripped Cena to shreds, and then proceeded to do that to Shawn Michaels and Triple H. It really conveyed the notion that Cena may have won, but if he and Lesnar met ten times, Lesnar would win nine. THAT is a great, and smart, story. Monster heels just need a bit more depth of planning, and they can work out fine. But far too often that isn't the case. They're brought in and used for a very specific purpose, and once that has been achieved the effort from the WWE brass just vanishes in regards to them. BQ: Kayfabe wise, I couldn't tell you. Vladimir Kozlov (god it's been a while since I've thought about him) was the definition of a monster heel. He stood toe-to-toe with Triple H for goodness sake. But after that night at Survivor Series 2008, he was never the same. Kayfabe wise, I just can't explain it. I really can't. Maybe after such a long undefeated run, to suddenly lose the big one causes a lack of heart and desire? I don't know. That's the best I can do. Non-kayfabe, it's because the interest is gone, most of the time. They WWE stops putting in the effort, the fans stop reacting and the value of the monster heel is gone. The WWE then tries to get whatever they can out of what remains of the monster heel, and more often than not it's cheap comedy skits. They're done solely for laughs, as the audience isn't initially expecting it.

Answer 4

Bit deepo for this time in the evening but I think that society was/is the monster. Ok, Frankenstein created an ugly creature in a manner which is abhorant to most people, so that would make him a monster. His creationwas ugly does that make Michael Jackson a monster? answers on a postcard to......
Society would not accept the creation, causing him despair and isolation. I think society behaved monstrously. Does that help??
Is this an English assignment? If it is, you've just failed!

Answer 5

I love Frankenstein! Theres only so much cruelness you can take before you snap. Having already lived your life (7 lives actually), and then being brought back to life, only to be abandoned, everyone thinking your something horrible. If you name your baby Wrath, for instance, chances are he will be an angry child. So eventually he was that thing that made the children cry, the women scream, and the men want to kill him. And on top of all of this, he was alone. Completely and utterly alone.
I haven't been drinking either, by the way :D

Answer 6

I agree with you, and you are right Frankenstein was the creator. Are not all scientist created or looked upon as something weird or out of step with the norm. Do they not work in mystery and wonder to come up with something that can be beneficial to the human race?
If they didn't what a wasted shame of untapped intelligence, because some one thinks different. Or chooses in his or her own way to act different or try and test the inner intelligence he or she was born with. Life would be very dull if we all looked at the glass and no one said 'It's half full'

Answer 7

It's been a long time since I read the book, but if I remember Victor Frankenstein (In the book) wasn't a Doctor or a medical student. (I know you haven't referred to him as such) But people do call him 'Dr'.
His desire for 'the secrets of heaven and earth' take him to the study of alchemy, magic and natural philosophy.
I personally feel that Victor is the monster for turning his back on his creation. Which becomes miserable and lonely, misunderstood and shunned from society through no fault of it's own.
This story, book and film could discussed for hours. Certainly not enough room here.

Don't listen to negative answers. It good to know someone likes to delve in to a good book.

Answer 8

This is one of those questions where your perspective determines the answer. Fundamentally, there is no black or white.
Ultimatly, questions are raised about fate V. free will. Did Victor "choose" to "create" the "monster"? Did the "monster" choose to kill? The story grapples with a man trying to play God. That is known as Hubris. Challenging the gods realeases Nemesis. She is the goddess of divine vengence.
Or was it Serendipity?
As a safety precaution, don't try and build a person out of other dead peoples left-over parts. It'll end in tears.
Incidentally, I like the way your mind works!

Answer 9

Dr Frankenstein was...technically... the monster. The underlying theme of the book pointed to an innocence in a monstrous creation and a monstrous lack of morality in an otherwise normal man.

Personally? I always liked the monster.

Answer 10

Great question!

I always felt bad for Frank.'s monster. Poor guy was brought into life and was tortured by his creator. He was always in want - for attention, for real life, for love. I think that Dr. Frankenstein was the real monster in that story. I actually got a little teary-eyed at the end.