Pekalski 1
Peter Pekalski
Professor Linda Chandler
LIB200.1465
June 1, 2010
The Villainy of Frankenstein
In the classic horror Frankenstein, Mary Shelley distorts the role of the antagonist and
protagonist. By depicting her antagonizing character known simply as the creature or at times the
monster as a lonesome unnatural being, reluctantly existing outside of society a sympathy is
provoked and the murderous creation though frightening, becomes more of an underdog than a
villain. In a similar fashion, Shelley's protagonist the mad scientist Victor Frankenstein, who's
ambition to create life artificially is fulfilled only for his cruel and superficial behavior to
gradually manifest displaying his neglect and distain for his child, becomes less of a hero and
more of a villain. Although distorted, the opposing forces of antagonist and protagonist remain
true throughout this tragic eighteenth century tale. Though Shelley’s literal monster is not a hero
he is made so only when compared to her ruthlessly determined man of science, the monster’s
villainous father, Victor Frankenstein.
Abandoned by his creator, Shelley’s creature is left to explore the world. In his endeavors
he finds hostility. The creature’s quest for acceptance is rivaled only by his quest for knowledge,
like his father. Trying to educate himself about the world, the creature happens upon a cottage.
Within the cottage, two men discuss secular topics, which layer the creature’s understanding of
this world. This newfound information is quickly implemented, and the creature becomes selfaware. Victor’s creation, now conscious of his differences begins to question philosophically;
“[w]hen I look around, I saw and heard of none like me. Was I then a monster, a blot upon the
earth, from which all men fled, and whom all men disowned?” (Shelley 119). This ability to
ponder one’s own place in society is met with a cold response for the creature. Disowned from
Pekalski 2
his only relative, he finds the world harsh and not accepting of his deformity. This lays the
foundation for a budding hatred toward Victor, and a rage fueled envy for Victor’s family and
friends. It was not the creature’s initial choice to murder and seek out hostility, instead the
creature sought out warmth and understanding. It was only after being met by the frigid members
of society that the creature acknowledged his differences, and decided to find solace outside the
fringe of this world.
Eleanor Salotto emphasizes in her piece ““Frankenstein” and Dis(re)membered Identity”
that “Frankenstein would like, however, to position himself as the hero of his life who rivals
nature (198)…” Frankenstein’s retelling of his tale is shown to be cautionary, however, manages
also to be self-indulgent. By Frankenstein’s subjective perspective of telling Wanton of the
events leading up to, and resulting from Victor’s creation, Frankenstein’s role becomes warped.
As Eleanor Salotto points out, Victor would like to be the hero, but is not. This skewed telling of
the tale is enough to make the creature’s curiosity appear to be a monstrous rampage.
Eleanor Salotto also writes in her piece that Frankenstein’s creation is meant to reinforce
Victor’s identity after his mothers death (190). Because Victor and the creature are tied together,
the farther Victor pushes his creature away, the greater the ties of identity bind them. Victor’s
superficial outlook caused him to loath his creation, leading to neglect and a complete disregard
for responsibility. Tied to Victor through this bond, the creature becomes frustrated and driven
back to his father, only to be turned away. This constant confliction drives the creature to the
brink of sanity and reason (192).
The frustration the creature endures is subdued only by his inquisitive nature. Victor’s
creation reasons that because of innate innocence, his acceptance is definite in the eyes of a
child. Upon encountering a boy, the creature decides to force companionship. New to the world,
Pekalski 3
and peering into the outskirts of society, the creature has never learned the art of forming a
mutual companionship. As the creature approaches the boy he recounts, “[u]rged by this impulse,
I seized on the boy as he passed and drew him towards me. As soon as he beheld my form, he
placed his hands before his eyes and uttered a shrill scream…” (Shelley 141). Though his actions
are known to be improper to a member of society, to the creature it is perfectly understandable.
After wrestling with the boy, sure of his failed plan’s success; the creature becomes insulted and
disappointed. The boy in distress mentions his ties to the Frankenstein family. The rejection from
yet another Frankenstein brings feelings of rage and hatred flooding the creature’s mind. Just as
his previous impulse was for companionship, submersed in emotions the creature murders the
boy. The overwhelming emotions and misunderstandings were brought about only because of the
absence of a parent.
In “(Un)Boxing the Monster”, Evellen Richards examines the role of society in the
upbringing of the creature of Frankenstein (323). The superficial expectations and lack of
acceptance play a large role in the creature’s heinous actions. Forced to exist outside of society,
the creature protests by opposing societal rules. The inverted balance of nature and nurture, form
the perfect concoction for a monster, be it human or other. Discussing such a duality, Richards
recognizes that “there may be aspects of the monster I cannot love; were I to endorse them I
would find my own position just as unlovable – and just as morally problematic (333).” This
observation of such opposition present in the judging of Victor’s creation, demonstrates a
rationale behind its’ actions. Rejection from his creator in conjunction to a hateful society
resulted in an angry, frustrated, lonesome creature. Against his initial behavior, murder becomes
an outlet in which protesting his parent and the shunning society becomes possible.
Pekalski 4
The creature, accepting his place outside of society begs his creator for another like him.
Victor agrees, feeling that appeasing his creature will be best for the world. Under the belief that
his solitude will come to an end, the creature readies himself to jettison from society. This
feeling of eager joy is met with Victor’s cold words, “[b]egone! I do break my promise; never
will I create another like yourself, equal in deformity and wickedness” (Shelley 166). Though
Victor reasons that the creation of a second creature could result in catastrophe, his realization
comes too late. Victor lacks this rationale before creating the first creature, and sustained a lack
of judgment by choosing to abandon the creature instead of accepting or destroying it. Having
lost any faith in finding solace in this world, the creature continues his vendetta against his
creator. By going back on his word, Victor seemingly displays a sense of remorse, however
Victor refuses to announce his creature’s origins or ties to the murders until his deathbed. This
contortion of behavior relative to the antagonist and protagonist distorts the villainy of Victor
Frankenstein and shrouds it behind a misunderstood creature’s acting out.
Paul Sherwin, “Frankenstein: Creation as Catastrophe” discusses the serial catastrophes
due to Victor Frankenstein (883). Like Victor, Walton describes his ambition and excitement
early on in the book. Unlike Victor however, Walton feels something at work in his soul. Victor
Frankenstein’s lack of a soul leads to a questioning of identity, the creation of the creature, and
his insanity before death. Sherwin highlights, “[a]s a recognizable human world recedes and the
Creature becomes a progressively more enthralling superpower, Frankenstein joins in the frenetic
dance of death that impels these mutually fascinated antagonists across the waste places of the
earth (886).” At each event, Victor had a chance to prevent the continuous devastation but chose
not to act. As an old adage states, “the only thing necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men
Pekalski 5
to do nothing.” Though Victor may have displayed heroic attributes, his choice not to act
allowed monstrous results proving him to be villainous.
Arguing that Frankenstein’s creature was responsible for his actions, but was deserving
of rights, Diana Reese calls upon great philosophers such as Emanuel Kant to support the
concept of inherited ethics in her work “A Troubled Legacy: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and
the Inheritance of Human Rights.” The argument depicted in Reese’s work is substantial,
however the argument unknowingly further proves Victor’s villainous behavior. Because it is
argued that ethics are inherited and exist prenatal, Victor has to be accountable for his actions
and lack thereof (Reese 48). Though Reese discusses the creature’s responsibilities, she also
argues for the creatures rights with statements such as “[t]he sympathy inspired by what one
might construe as the result of an identification produced by sentimental readership can-not
sustain the logical consequence that the monster would draw from it, that is, his claim on the
right to community- the positive freedom of a right to the exchange of sympathies with ““one of
his own species (51).””” Unlike the creature, Victor was not new to this world, and had acted
within society’s construct. The child abandonment, playing god, and allowing murder after
murder further solidify Victor as Shelley’s antagonist. The creature may have had inherited
ethics, however, through constant negative reinforcement, and limited recognition as a sentient
being, his ethics became skewed allowing him to fabricate his own rules.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein plays a larger part in comparing the qualities of a hero and
a villain. Each role, as shown in this horror classic, must be examined relative to the other. The
role of the creature is littered with actions and scenes associated with that of a villain. The role of
Victor Frankenstein is overwhelmed with circumstances associated with a hero. Each however,
does not clearly depict the truth of each character. Because of his impulsive and diabolical
Pekalski 6
behavior Victor’s creature initially strikes fear into the reader and is easily seen as a monster,
however when juxtaposed to his creator, Victor becomes the true villain. Victor’s mask of
humanity is flawed, and his ability to hold it so tightly is truly the horrific piece to this classic.
Pekalski 7
Works Cited
Reese, Diana. “A Troubled Legacy: Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” and the Inheritance of
Human Rights”. Representations No.96 (2006): 48-72. JSTOR. Print.
Richards, Evelleen. “(Un)Boxing the Monster”. Social Studies of Science Vol. 26, No.2 (1996):
323-356. JSTOR. Print.
Salotto, Eleanor. “”Frankenstein” and Dis(re)membered Identity”. The Journal of Narrative
Technique Vol. 24 No.3 (1994): 190-211. JSTOR. Print.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 1819. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 2003. Print.
Sherwin, Paul. "Frankenstein: Creation as Catastrophe". Modern Language Association Vol. 96,
No.5 (1981): 883-903. JSTOR. Print.