Fallacy In Frankenstein

Register to read the introduction… All too often we have seen movies or TV shows about a mutant of some sort, who, because of his looks, assumes that no on will love him, and because of that is angry and hostile. Such story lines are even present in The Beauty and the Beast. Usually, in the end there is a kind lady who saves the monster, proving that she can love, and he can too. However in this story there is only the De Lacey family. The monster watches them though a window where he sees love in the family, but he is rejected by them due to his fiendish looks. This is the turning point for the monster much as being turned into the beast was the prince in the a fore mentioned fairy tale. The monster then goes on a rampage with the idea that if he cannot have love, than no one should. The fallacy in his logic was that he should try to satisfy his own needs rather than making every one else …show more content…
Frankenstein originally pushed the monster away it was an act of utter disgrace on his part. Equivalent to disowning your own child, Dr. Frankenstein didn't want to be associated with his creation. Although Dr. Frankenstein acted like a disgruntled inventor who threw away his last project because it wasn't perfect, he didn't realize that the monster had feelings. Some would argue that in this context Dr. Frankenstein was the monster. However just as disowning a child won't necessarily make him go on a killing rampage, it takes more than that to make the monster kill. What the doctor did was insensitive and also very risky. He did not know the full powers of the monster at that time, so what he did was also very careless. But insensitivity and carelessness do not make a monster. Plenty an inventor have invented things that would now be considered careless to invent. The Atomic Bomb, or dynamite to name two. And if Nobel once brushed off his wife, or dumped a girl friend for no reason, would he then be considered a monster?