Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is not only a classic gothic novel and arguably one of the first examples of science fiction in modern literature but also a statement on many crucial social topics. Among the things, the novel implicitly refers to the age-old nature vs. nurture debate about whether one’s personality is defined by the inborn qualities or the upbringing one receives in the course of one’s life. The crucial figure of the Creature suggests that Shelley solves this issue in favor of nurture: while not inherently evil, it turns to revenge and murder as a result of unsuccessful interactions with humans.
Although the novel may seem to justify the idea that the Creature is inherently evil, this notion falls apart upon closer inspection. When describing his initial impressions of the Creature coming to life, Victor cannot – and, frankly, does not attempt – to hide the disgust at how it looks, even though he composed its body himself (Shelley 50). Moreover, when the Creature prostrates its arm forward, Victor immediately concludes that it does so “to detain” him (Shelley 50). Based on that, one could think that the Creature is evil from the start, but this assumption is plainly wrong. As the Creature itself later reveals, his soul initially “glowed with love and humanity,” and it came to his creator seeking nothing more than paternal love (Shelley 104). Even after his soul is hardened, it demonstrates self-restraint and does not attack Victor at will, even though it can easily overpower him. Martinović is right to note that, at its ‘birth,’ the Creature possesses a “childlike innocence” rather than inborn ill will (44). If anything, an attempt to represent it as evil from the start highlights Victor’s unreliability as a narrator.
In contrast, the novel offers plentiful evidence in favor of the Creature being shaped by experiences rather than inherited factors. If the Creature’s story is true – and, given the situation, it would hardly gain anything from lying to Victor – it attempted to be genuinely helpful at first but suffered rejection because of its appearance. Martinović points out that its interactions with de Laceys demonstrate both desire to help, as when it secretly gathers firewood for them, and the ability to feel remorse (45). The turning point of its relationship with humankind is the episode when it saves a drowning girl only to be shot instead of thanked. It is at that point that the Creature vows “eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind” and becomes the monster Victor thought it to be from the very beginning (Shelley 155). Although the novel’s titular hero could use it as a retroactive justification for his initial rejection of the Creature, the text speaks to the contrary. The Creature’s cruelty, which eventually leads it to commit multiple murders out of revenge, is not inherited but caused by its interactions with humans.
As one can see, Frankenstein solves the old debate of nature vs. nurture quite decisively in favor of the latter. While Victor posits that the Creature is evil from the beginning, he is an unreliable narrator, and his depiction of the events is most likely a retroactive attempt to justify his actions – or lack thereof. In contrast, the Creature’s story demonstrates there was no inborn villainy in him, and it only became the monster after numerous negative experiences overcame its initially benevolent predisposition toward humanity.
Works Cited
Martinović, Nera. “Nature vs. Nurture in the Case of the Monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus.” Kick: Students’ Magazine, vol. 2, no. 2, 2019, pp. 41-46.
Shelley, Mary. “Frankenstein.” Archive.org, Web.