Frankenstein Ch. 15-16 Questions

1. Do you think the monster had other realistic options for dealing with his feelings of isolation and anger?

Not really. He had no one to vent to, and he is still struggling with what emotions even are. There are even humans that deal with their anger this way, and they can help what makes them mad. It is the same with the monster. He has a lot of reasons to be hurt and angry, and what other way can he take them out? Wise decision making obviously isn’t something he would be able to do considering his circumstances. I feel like he didn’t have much of a choice. As a human being I can say that the choices he made, especially killing the little boy, were wrong, but does he REALLY know better? I’m not so sure.

2. Up until this point there has been much "coincidence" that has lead the monster to Victor, for example, his finding Victor’s journal and happening to run into William in the woods. Mary Shelley has been criticized for relying too much on coincidence to advance the plot of this novel. Do you agree or disagree with this criticism? Explain your opinion.

I do agree, because it simply isn’t realistic. But, is what person wants, to pick up a book and it be reality? To be honest, the book would be boring. In real life, the monster probably would have never found Victor. He would have never found his journal. It just makes good writing and an enjoyable read. I think that it is unrealistic, but it makes a good story.

3. Do you think Victor will comply with the monster’s request? Why or why not?

I think so. I think that since Victor has sat down and listened to his story and knows how many times he has been turned away; I don’t think that Victor is so cold hearted to not help him out. I’m sure Victor now feels bad enough for inflicting such pain on a living thing, that it is now his job to make up for the wrong he has done against it. He made it, so the least he could do was take some of the pain and weight off of the monster.

4. Do you think Victor should comply with the monster’s request? Why or why not?

Absolutely. It is almost like parenting. Don’t bring a child or a “being” into this world if you can not take care of it. Be responsible enough to avoid those situations. Victor did not. He asked for this, and now he doesn’t want what he created. The monster was abandoned and has only experienced misery, and that isn’t fair. It is Victor’s responsibility to provide this one request. He should at least give him that much.

5. Do you think the monster is guilty of murder? Why or why not.

Yes. The monster killed another human being, so therefore it is murder. The circumstances surrounding it are sympathetic, but he killed an innocent child.

6. Do you think that Victor is partly responsible for William’s death? If no, why not. If yes, what should be his punishment?

No. I think that Victor’s mistakes and selfishness are what caused the monster to be full of revenge and anger. But that can’t take away what the monster did. He had a choice and it was his choice alone. It is not Victor’s fault because the of the murder.

7. At this point in the book, do you think the monster is truly a monster? Explain your answer.

No I don’t believe he is a “monster”. I think he is as close to human as it gets without being “human”. He has emotions, he has confusions, he has made some horrible mistakes. He also has a story and he has his reasons for the choices he made. The reasons why I would not consider him a “monster” is because I know his story.

8. Do you excuse any of the monster’s actions because he was neglected by Victor and treated in such a cruel manner by other humans?

I don’t excuse what he did, but I am sympathetic. His reasons make sense as to why he would decide to make those choices and, in some ways, Victor is responsible because he is the source for the monsters anger. However, Victor did not force or ask the monster to kill anyone.

9. Would you excuse another human being for his or her violent actions because he or she was previously neglected, abused, bullied or otherwise victimized? Why or why not.

My answer is just the same as in #8. I would say 99% of all murderers have a horrible story. They’ve had horrible a childhood. For some, I am very sympathetic, but they had a choice. It is a given in life that murder is wrong. They knew it was wrong. They were capable of stopping. However, their reasons may be understandable.

10. Do you think that Mary Shelley intended this novel to be critical of mankind’s scientific advancements? What kind of a statement do you believe she might be making?

I don’t think it is so much as taking a stab at technological advancements. It might some kind of warning. Someday people may be capable of producing or cloning people without sex. If the beings that were produced were turned away by their makers, we’d have a lot of angry “monsters”. If anything, I would think that this novel is based on her views of parenting, not technology.