The nature vs. nurture debate questions whether
Frankenstein's monster was born evil, or if he learned to become evil because of his
lack of "nurture".
I believe that the monster was born good
and innocent. After he was "born" and left to his own devices, the monster was found
watching Victor sleep. When Victor wakes, the monster smiles at him and reaches out his
hand for him. These are not the actions of a violent person. The monster had the
opportunity to kill or injure Victor as he slept, but he only watched his creator
lovingly.
In addition, when watching the Delacey family and
realizing that taking their food was harming them, he stopped taking their food and
began gathering fire wood to make their lives easier. His first insticts were also to
save the little girl who fell into the water, but to his surprise he was rewarded by
being shot with a gun by the girl's father. These are such instances which demonstrate
that the monster's "nature" is quite good.
However, the
creation, who was abandoned at "birth" was left to his own devices and was never
nutured. In order to be fully happy in life, everyone needs to be able to count on
someone. Unfortunately, the monster never had this opportunity. He was abandoned by
his own creator, beaten and chased away by villagers; he was never given the chance to
fit in. When he finally has the opportunity to be "loved", by the Delacey's, Felix
beats him with a stick, Safie screams and runs away, then they leave the cottage
forever. The monster is then rewarded for saving a girl by being shot by her father.
It is at this point that the monster utters the words "If I cannot inspire love, I will
cause fear."
The "nurture" debate argues that the monster
never had a chance in life. If he became a monster who killed people, it is because he
had no other choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment