Shows that even though he is man made, he is able to feel human emotions and sensations
Victor shows here the regret and anger he feels for creating the monster. He is so enraged that he himself begins to feel like he is a monster. he says he was destroying the objects that obstructed him. This statement alone makes me feel that the monster is guilty. his creation should not make him feel as if he has ruined hisself it should give him peace.
He realized how much his actions affected the father’s children and also realized that at the time he didn’t care about the consequences of his actions and is now showing regret.
Right here, he is describing the world around him after being criticized and attacked by the De Lacey’s. The setting is described as chill, hard, bare, cold. This imagery can be compared his feelings. Rejection by villagers, the De Lacey family, and most importantly, his creator, they made him a bitter soul. His final sentence in the quote shows the transformation that happened, because of the cruel treatment he had been receiving. Just like the nature around him was changing, so was his, he was no longer deemed an innocent creature, he was corrupted by the society around him.
This is that makes that makes believe that Frankenstein’s Monster guilty. I also believe that it was premeditated. He has sworn vengeance against Frankenstein and everyone that he loves. The Monster has a lot of anger in his for Frankenstein heart and he intentionally took that anger out on the younger Frankenstein. Also two paragraphs below he says he feels “hellish triumph” after killing the boy. He is clearly guilty
Defense (Witnesses and Cross-examination): He is in destress! A place that brings him calmness and peace is now empty and he is worried. You cannot blame him for being out of his element. What his norm is no longer the norm and he feels all is against him. As he states, he is in agony and is trembling in fear. This is unusual to him and not his normal behavior but he is being set up. This entire scheme is plotted against him. He is a good guy who was just taken out of his element purposefully. It is a set up for failure which should be not allowed on anyone. It is dark when it is not usually. You cannot blame someone who is being set up.
Here is were I think the monster really gained an idea of what it is he was doing. He knew he the stakes of life and death at this point and refused to think of it rationally
Even though he did commit murder, he was trying to do what he thought was a great act of kindness to only be paid with a gun shot wound. He is a powerful creature but also just trying to learn what is truly right and wrong. He needs to at least be contained and thought how to live in this world and what it would take to live among people.
(Prospective of the “Monster”)
I am of innocence yet all of the people are fearful of me. I do good yet get no good in return. I just want to live a normal happy life. I am a living thing with emotions and understanding of life but, I am treated like a savage. Even though this does frustrate me greatly, deep down I know I would never hurt a soul. Indeed because I know how horrid it feels to be hurt. I’ve been hurt since the moment I was born.
The thought process and the actions of the monster seem to reflect similar characteristics of its creator. In particular, the way it handles emotions such as anger. Often times, humans feel as though they need a medium of some kind to manifest certain emotions. For example, when we are mad we may want to take that anger out on someone else, but since that is unethical, we turn to alternatIve options like meditation. Victor suffered many traumas growing up, and when he grew emotional over such things he would shut down. He would cut off all communication with friends and family and would manifest those emotions into his creation. It seems that the monster is a product of that same mental.
This place reflects the monster's heart even if very angry, but also did not hurt those living objects. In my opinion, although this monster is ugly, he is very kind. He also longs for art and love just like a human. I think that the monster also has some pity, because actually at first he is very kind but because of his terrible and ugly appearance, people do not accept it. In my opinion, because frankenstein made him looking ugly, not he should not treat the monster so cold and cruel. Therefore, emotion is the pillar of human spirit, and beautiful emotion is the precious thing that human nature longs for and wants to possess.
I believe this is the evidence for voluntary manslaughter. The monster's time in Geneva is him wanting to meet his creator, and if he had ill intent for anyone it was Victor. It’s in this moment and the following passages when he starts to become annoyed with William and then finds out he is in the Frankenstein family that he strangles him. It was a moment of anger and passion.
In the early days of this terrible creature, his heart was not entirely consumed by the desire for revenge. His mind is struggling, and there is still a trace of humanity. When he thinks of his friends, he can control his anger and feel sad. But at the same time he also felt helpless and could only vent his anger on inanimate objects.
This sentence opens up with a sense of anger that the creature holds over his own self or the creator and view something or a certain object that is not in the way anymore. Saying “I was like a wild beast” has a connection between monster and satan. The monster was born an innocent creature. After being a victim to Victor and revealing his corruption he has become guilty. He does not necessarily enjoy being this creature.
In defense of the creature, he was the one attacked in the cottage. Describing the scene as horrible from his perspective shows that he did not aim to create such a scene. The rage was not his and the scene was no caused by him. Here is this horrible experience that will forever traumatize him and affect his view of the world forever, and yet he was not fault for creating this horrible scene.
This is the most pivotal moment in the chapter, consciously choosing to kill a child. Looking at everything that’s built up to this moment it’s impossible to deny that he has a right to feel and act the way he did. Having been hurt emotionally and physically by his creator, while also living in a hostile world, led him to become a reflection of his experiences. The monster is most certainly guilty of the crimes he’s committed but he is morally justified in his actions due to the negligence of his creator,
In the defense of the monster: Witnesses and Cross examination – Gabriel Sandys
At first glance this piece of evidence does appear to assist the prosecutions argument. However, I want to bring up another piece of evidence that gives context for the actions. As the witness, the philosopher (yuyang yan), pointed out in his account of The Monster’s (or what I prefer Mr. M’s) actions Mr. M did save a child. A child drowning in a river who surely would have died without the actions of Mr. M? And after this encounter a man brandishing a firearm with hostile intent pursued Mr. M. What was Mr. M’s course of action? Why to flee the scene, not to flee a crime, but to flee a good deed he performed all because of his appearance.
This brings me to the current argument at hand. Did Mr. M kill the child as seen in the passage sighted? All current presumptions most likely point to yes. However given the previous evidence we know Mr. M is not of ill intent. I want to paint a different picture, not one of good or evil, intent or not, but rather one by which is seen through the arbitrary fact of the monster. Although aged in appearance, different in physical capabilities, Mr. M is effectively a child. He only knows that which he has learned from his parents. Who were his parents effectively? Villagers who effectively taught him the basics of humanity, but eventually despised his existence, and why? Because of the father, Victor Frankenstein, who ultimately failed as a father, he failed to care, he failed to teach, he failed to take part in Mr. M’s life in every manor other then casting it face-first into an unwanted life of torment, sorrow, and all manners of living torment.
Mr. M is a projection of the actions of those around him, those who he holds close. Although hated by Mr. M that man is Victor Frankenstein. A man who for a lack of better words tortured Mr. M. So I propose that this action was not by client but rather Victor Frankenstein! Who by all accounts is the modern Prometheus.
Henry Clerval: The monster clearly has no sense of control. Fury and destruction are the root of his existence and he can’t change that no matter what. He has been rejected many times by humans, but instead of continuing his pursuit of human kindness or even just abandoning humankind, he resorts to violence upon nature (and eventually killing humans). Unlike Victor, the monster has committed several crimes like murder (killing all of Victor’s family) and fraud (putting William’s necklace into Justine’s pockets, framing her as the killer).
Trial of the Monster: Witness: Henry Clerval. Case: Voluntary Manslaughter.
The monster is here by convicted of voluntary manslaughter. A key witness, Henry Clerval, states that he saw the monster seize a young boy and overhears the conversation. Initially, the monster wants to befriend this boy. The child struggles, screams, and mentions his relations to Frankenstein, where the monster then becomes furious, choking the young lad to death. This evidence here proves the monster is guilty of killing the boy intentionally, to get back at Victor for abandoning his creation. This monster is clearly an abomination and well aware of his actions!
This monster wasn’t born with violent and he was kind of goodness. He saved a little girl’s life and he did not fight back even the man shoot him with gun. Hence, i don’t think this moster intentionally hurt innocent people.
As the scientist, I feel like the monster didn’t mean to cause harm to anyone. He just doesn’t know how to act around others. He wasn’t born with love or have any love after his birth. Everyone fear him do to his looks being different from everyone else. I feel the jury should understand that everyone act a certain way by their growth. If one have a good background, they will act good, but if the background is sad and no love to care for someone, they will have no self control if something is right or wrong.
As a witness in the trial I would like to point out a flaw in the case. The following passage is a confession from the monster and how he got away with murder. I believe that the jury should look in to this text to form an idea of who’s responsible.
Frankenstein(monster) knew he was cable of murder. Frankenstein is deeply enraged and saddened. He realizes he is a social outcast and that he is a monster. He wants to take the cruelty he has received and put it onto others. He wants to see others suffer to feel better about his own painful existence. He wants revenge on society. But more than anything he wants revenge on the person who has caused him the most suffering (William).
Case for Voluntary Manslaughter:
Here, the monster is found saying that he did not intend to hurt the child, he was pleading to be listened to. With his begging to be listened to it shows that the purpose of his aggression was to try and get the child to listen to him, instead of fear him. This shows the very opposite of any form of premeditated murder. The child’s death was a result of the Monster’s emotional break down.
Before the altercation between the monster and the child, it shows the monster as excited. The monster found hope that he could perhaps show the child there was no reason to judge or fear him. However, with the child’s hateful comments and threat of his father, the monster was triggered into what could be considered acting in the heat of passion and voluntary manslaughter being the consequence.
While the killing may have become intentional as it was happening, there is no hint that this killing of the child was premeditated in any means. In fact, it is quite exactly the opposite. A case for involuntary manslaughter could also be made, however, the monster was shown to gain intention through the killing after the child made the crude remarks.
The Model Penal Code (section 210.3) states that a murder is downgraded to manslaughter when it was "committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse." Overcome with emotion the monster could not control his actions. He may have killed but he is not a murderer under these conditions.
I think Frankenstein is not guilty. I have accidentally created a monster that I did not think would be able to do this much damage. He shows remorse and has feelings, that is more than guilty people can say. He can not control himself or his power.
The monster clearly understands the logical processes of feelings such as feeling despair and just confusion to caused it to rage because the monster wanted revenge. An artificial life form like this cannot interpret these irrational things such as feelings. Although he is understanding it through a logical view, he isn’t through an emotional view. The monster’s realization of this shows how he is beginning to understand he is not normal at all. How he could have destroyed the cottages and take their lives with no regret at all. The monster here shows it has no remorse for anything at all. Something like this is dangerous because it just does not have that empathy that humans have from being artificial.
This chapter opens up with evidence of bitterness that the creature holds over his creator. Asking the question “Why did I live?” This has a connection to Paradise Lost showing the link between monster and satan. The monster was born an innocent creature. After being a victim to Victor and revealing his corruption he has become guilty.
Case for voluntary manslaughter:
The creature killed William because he was enraged by the mention of the name of his creator who abandoned him. In that moment, his emotions took over and all he knew was that he had to hurt the man who had caused his miserable existence through any means at hand. In that moment, that meant punishing him emotionally by harming his brother.
Additionally, the child was insulting him, as every other human had before, which added somewhat to his emotional turmoil.
“Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender acted during the heat of passion, under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed to the point that they cannot reasonably control their emotions.”
According to this definition of voluntary manslaughter, the creature’s actions can be classified as such because of the emotional turmoil and passionate hatred that temporarily impacted his judgement.
The argument could be made that this was involuntary manslaughter. The line “I grasped his throat to silence him…” reveals something about the creature’s thought process. Perhaps, as a brand new living being who is perhaps not entirely aware of his superhuman strength, or that choking someone is not the way to silence someone, he did not mean to use deadly force against the child. However, I do not support this view because the creature has existed in the world long enough to become used to his strength. Further, the victim was a child and thus the crime warrants a harsher verdict where the lines are blurred between the two definitions.
It is not outright murder because he obviously did not plan ahead of time to kill the child though, as he had no knowledge of who he was, but rather wished to befriend him.
Mary Shelley uses temperature, such as the heat of the fire or even the changing of seasons to represent the creature’s emotions or situation. As the summer ends, the creature is not satisfied with the lack of affection that he receives, although the rest of the cottagers still feel love and warmth. The fire comes after a moment of tranquility, as he realizes the injustices against him and feels a deep rage within him. A cold winter with rain of sorrow follows as he travels to Geneva, as he is in a constant state of sadness.
The Creature is an unnatural being, he is man made. Though despite this, the Romantic fascination with the sublime persists in how he reacts to nature. Even despite being utterly distraught, the first day of spring allows him to be happy if only for a moment. He finds comfort in putting the idea that he is an abomination in the back of his mind to just enjoy the moment and take in the sun and the nature around him. I find that this lesson is something society is familiar with today however is hard to ignore due to the extreme use of social media. Once someone stops concerning themselves with their appearance and how they’re viewed socially, they can reach inner happiness and bliss just as the Creature did when taking in the nature around him which makes him truly happy.
Although the creature is asking for companionship, something that is essential for life and humanity, it is not an easy decision for Victor. Through the events that have occurred so far, we have witnessed what the creature is capable of; the source of all his anger and revenge plots are a result of the injustices he has experienced so far, but creating another creature may not be the best idea. First of all, Victor has meddled with the balance of nature and pushed the power of science to a dangerous limit that has posed great consequences. In an ethical and moral standpoint, creating another creature just like he did the first time is something that can pose further consequences and complications. Instead, if only Victor could accept the duty he has as a creator and offer his creature the correct type of companionship from himself, a second creature and future events could be avoided.
After the creature saved the drowning child, what interested me was the reaction. “On seeing me, he darted towards me, and, tearing the girl from my arms, hastened towards the deeper parts of the wood. I followed speedily, I hardly knew why; but when the man saw me draw near, he aimed a gun, which he carried, at my body, and fired.” This quote from the story really shows that you should never judge a book by it’s cover. Yes, he may appear differently from normal, but the creature sacrificed his own self to save the girl’s life.
When the creature was born he possessed charitable, and thoughtful behaviors. After being rejected and put down so many times, and by so many people, he became bitter. A common question is whether people are born innocent and society corrupts them, or people are naturally evil. This has to do with the nature vs. nurture argument, which is very prevalent in psychology. This enduring issue is relevant in arguing the extent to which genes (nature) and the environment (nurture) influence thoughts and behaviors. The Creature’s original nature is giving and generous,but turns to hatred and bitterness as he is exposed more and more to his environment. Therefore, his environment plays a large role in his behaviors and corrupts him to be a new form of himself that is vengeful.
I personally don’t agree with Frankenstein’s monster’s demand for the creation of another creature of his “race,” because I disagree with the creation of the monster in the first place. Victor should not have been so careless with the power to create life, and he handled the whole process very poorly after the creation of his monster. Had he contained his creation instead of letting it escape, 3 people would still be alive. And after being responsible for the deaths of these 3 people, the monster requesting that ANOTHER creature be created sounds like a great danger to society. There is plenty of evidence that shows that the creature was aware of what he was doing when he killed, and letting him continue this school of thought is a bad idea.
In this moment of self-examination, the creature realizes the human tendency to fear the unfamiliar or unexplained. Later, Victor echoes this sentiment, admitting to himself that “nothing is so painful to the human mind as a great and sudden change.”
Want to learn more about how public perceptions of new technologies move across the spectrum from abject fear to comfortable familiarity? Watch “A Bolt of Lightning,” featuring commentary by Britt Wray, a science communicator, author, and producer, and Ben Novak, lead scientist and genetic rescue consultant at Revive and Restore.
Watch more episodes of our Reanimation! series on our Media page.
In this turning point, the creature no longer figures himself as an Adam, the first being of a new creation of humans or humanoids; rather, he opts to be like Milton’s Satan, of whom he has read. The epic poem Paradise Lost (Milton  2007) recounts the fall of the angel Satan, who does battle with God, is exiled from heaven, and plots his revenge against his creator with the temptation of Adam and Eve to eat from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge. Sentenced by God to hell, Milton’s Satan is determined to make a heaven of his hell and to revel in his punishment, which he sees as unjust. In Mary’s story, the creature, having exhausted the limits of reason and compassion when he receives no kindness from humans, cuts himself off from the human race and becomes the antagonist of humankind.