Nature vs. Nurture in Frankenstein
Nature vs. Nurture plays a big role in the book of Frankenstein. Is it nature’s fault that the creature acts the way he does, or is nurture the one to take fault? Is the creature really evil and revengeful, or is he the way he is because of the way the harsh and judgmental society treated him right off the bat? We tend to act the way we do because of past experiences that we have had in our lifetime. These usually start out from when we are young, being taught right from wrong, yet there is an inbred conscience in all of us due to nature. So the real question to be asked is, ‘is someone made the way that the creature is made, acts the way he does because of his genetic materials, or because he lacks nurture from a parent or guardian?’
From the time Victor discovers the secrets of life and manipulates a scientific experiment creating a monster, he winces in horror and lets the monster go free. Shouldn’t the one who created the monster have the desire to keep and nurture their “offspring” so to speak? Didn’t Victor know that his created monster would need guidance, be taught human social patterns, basic communication as in language and speech, or the ways of man, just like he was taught from his parents? Or was Victors only goal to just create (nature) but not educate (nurture)? Victor had a great family base, close friends and relatives, as well as respected; yet he didn’t extend the kind of nurture he had.
The monster, of which Victor has created in his madness, now walks throughout the streets of the city not knowing how to acceptably act because he was not giving any kind of nurture. His first feelings are of rejection and degrading remarks. Now living, he doesn’t understand the language, yet his nature comprehends rejection. The monster wants to run because it does not feel good. Overtime, Victor becomes deeply saddened and burdened with intense guilt for having created the monster. So both the creator and the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document