Frankenstein: Who's The Real Monster?

One of the things I find most fascinating about Frankenstein isn’t even the book itself but the reactions to it and the resulting discourse: that the logical conclusions of the two things “everyone knows” about the book, that “the monster was turned into a monster by society and not born a monster” and “the creature isn’t the monster, Victor Frankenstein is the real monster” is essentially never explored — if monsters are created by society and Victor Frankenstein is a monster? What made him?

The question itself is an interesting one to analyze, but also how many people just don’t care about it is itself interesting to analyze. Why are these two “facts” about the book never put together? Is it because we so desire a villain that when one is excused we must build another in its place? Is it because these “facts” about the book are so regurgitated that they are not products of critical thinking in most peoples minds, so to think critically to come up with the obvious new question is not actually obvious? Is it because Victor Frankenstein, as a character, is so unsympathetic that the reader doesn’t care what made him a monster, that what matters more to a person to forgive them is likeability than understanding? All of these are kind of disturbing conclusions, to be honest, but it’s definitely food for thought.

Originally posted on Tumblr on June 5, 2022 at brain-depositary