Is the Monster the Monster?

I feel for the monster.  Which, to those who have read the novel, is not an unusual feeling, which is part of the reason that I am upset that the general population has an image in their minds of the monster being a dumb, unthinking fiend that should be eternally hated.  This, I feel I can contribute to the film industry.  Especially since the 1931 edition, where the monster was portrayed as both mute and beast-like, has the character been constantly abused by Hollywood and the public.  In response to such general lack of knowledge of the monster’s tragic and enlightened life, I write this.

Initially, the only fault of the monster is his own hideousness, he has yet to commit the horrible deeds he would later in the novel, and has yet to garner the animosity towards his creator that loneliness and rejection would later give him.  He is a fresh creature born into a world that hates him, he is implied to be kind and gentle by nature, and only society twists him.  The monster, and I almost hesitate to call him that, as Frankenstein seems the true monster in the book, is innately good.

As he was “born” to Frankenstein, it would make sense that as a result, Frankenstein would have a just responsibility to both the monster and society to educate the creature, and give it care.  Like Adam, the creature should have been nurtured by his creator, and given a companion.  But this was impeded by two things.  First, the monster was physically hideous, just absolutely repulsive, and flaws in not just Victor, but all of mankind led him to hate him because of his physical deformities.  Humanity’s inability to tolerate that which is different from us or our surroundings led to Victor’s rejection of the creature.   Secondly, Victor had no control over his creation, the monster was physically more powerful than he, and, as is evident from the monster’s eloquence and knowledge of Milton and French, the monster was equal or superior to Victor intellectually.  This problem in particular led Victor to deny the creature happiness by refusing to create him a mate.  Unlike God and Adam, Victor would have no control over his monster or its offspring with its mate, and thus considered it immoral to release a possible race of these creatures upon the Earth in opposition to nature and mankind. 

Given that it is clearly Victor’s fault that the monster felt rejection and despair at his situation, one must inevitably come to the atrocities that the monster committed.  Is he truly evil for having committed them?  I would argue he is not.  Society made him, not his own nature.  The monster was depressed by a life in which he was doomed to be alone forever, and as a result of his repeated disappointments in both Frankenstein and humanity, it is only to be expected that he would lash out.  Understandable that he would want to hurt his creator in the most intimate way possible, by killing his loved ones.  Perhaps his crimes need not have been so horrendous, but when considering the way in which he was doomed to live his life, and the way people treated the creature, it can almost be considered inevitable that he would act out in such a way.