frankenstein nature vs nurture thesis

Not Born a Monster: Nature vs. Nurture and the Creature in “Frankenstein” Essay

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is not only a classic gothic novel and arguably one of the first examples of science fiction in modern literature but also a statement on many crucial social topics. Among the things, the novel implicitly refers to the age-old nature vs. nurture debate about whether one’s personality is defined by the inborn qualities or the upbringing one receives in the course of one’s life. The crucial figure of the Creature suggests that Shelley solves this issue in favor of nurture: while not inherently evil, it turns to revenge and murder as a result of unsuccessful interactions with humans.

Although the novel may seem to justify the idea that the Creature is inherently evil, this notion falls apart upon closer inspection. When describing his initial impressions of the Creature coming to life, Victor cannot – and, frankly, does not attempt – to hide the disgust at how it looks, even though he composed its body himself (Shelley 50). Moreover, when the Creature prostrates its arm forward, Victor immediately concludes that it does so “to detain” him (Shelley 50). Based on that, one could think that the Creature is evil from the start, but this assumption is plainly wrong. As the Creature itself later reveals, his soul initially “glowed with love and humanity,” and it came to his creator seeking nothing more than paternal love (Shelley 104). Even after his soul is hardened, it demonstrates self-restraint and does not attack Victor at will, even though it can easily overpower him. Martinović is right to note that, at its ‘birth,’ the Creature possesses a “childlike innocence” rather than inborn ill will (44). If anything, an attempt to represent it as evil from the start highlights Victor’s unreliability as a narrator.

In contrast, the novel offers plentiful evidence in favor of the Creature being shaped by experiences rather than inherited factors. If the Creature’s story is true – and, given the situation, it would hardly gain anything from lying to Victor – it attempted to be genuinely helpful at first but suffered rejection because of its appearance. Martinović points out that its interactions with de Laceys demonstrate both desire to help, as when it secretly gathers firewood for them, and the ability to feel remorse (45). The turning point of its relationship with humankind is the episode when it saves a drowning girl only to be shot instead of thanked. It is at that point that the Creature vows “eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind” and becomes the monster Victor thought it to be from the very beginning (Shelley 155). Although the novel’s titular hero could use it as a retroactive justification for his initial rejection of the Creature, the text speaks to the contrary. The Creature’s cruelty, which eventually leads it to commit multiple murders out of revenge, is not inherited but caused by its interactions with humans.

As one can see, Frankenstein solves the old debate of nature vs. nurture quite decisively in favor of the latter. While Victor posits that the Creature is evil from the beginning, he is an unreliable narrator, and his depiction of the events is most likely a retroactive attempt to justify his actions – or lack thereof. In contrast, the Creature’s story demonstrates there was no inborn villainy in him, and it only became the monster after numerous negative experiences overcame its initially benevolent predisposition toward humanity.

Works Cited

Martinović, Nera. “Nature vs. Nurture in the Case of the Monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. ” Kick: Students’ Magazine , vol. 2, no. 2, 2019, pp. 41-46.

Shelley, Mary. “Frankenstein.” Archive.org , Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, February 20). Not Born a Monster: Nature vs. Nurture and the Creature in "Frankenstein". https://ivypanda.com/essays/not-born-a-monster-nature-vs-nurture-and-the-creature-in-frankenstein/

"Not Born a Monster: Nature vs. Nurture and the Creature in "Frankenstein"." IvyPanda , 20 Feb. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/not-born-a-monster-nature-vs-nurture-and-the-creature-in-frankenstein/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Not Born a Monster: Nature vs. Nurture and the Creature in "Frankenstein"'. 20 February.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Not Born a Monster: Nature vs. Nurture and the Creature in "Frankenstein"." February 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/not-born-a-monster-nature-vs-nurture-and-the-creature-in-frankenstein/.

1. IvyPanda . "Not Born a Monster: Nature vs. Nurture and the Creature in "Frankenstein"." February 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/not-born-a-monster-nature-vs-nurture-and-the-creature-in-frankenstein/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Not Born a Monster: Nature vs. Nurture and the Creature in "Frankenstein"." February 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/not-born-a-monster-nature-vs-nurture-and-the-creature-in-frankenstein/.

• Motifs and Themes in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein"
• “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley
• Ethical Issues in the Novel "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley
• Mary Shelley's Monster in Frankenstein Literature Analysis
• Shelley’s Frankenstein: Double Vision of the Hero
• Ethics as a Theme in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
• Comparison of Victor and the Creature in ”Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley
• Homosexuality in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
• Feminism in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
• Frankenstein by Mary Shelley: Divine and Satanic
• "Atonement" by Ian McEwan: A Book Review
• The Novel “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley
• “The Golden Compass” by Philip Pullman
• Character Analysis in Pride and Prejudice From the Feminist Perspective
• “Trumpet”: Blues and Jazz Elements in the Novel

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Frankenstein — Victor Frankenstein: Nature Vs Nurture

Victor Frankenstein: Nature Vs Nurture

• Categories: Frankenstein Gender Discrimination Nature Versus Nurture

About this sample

Words: 642 |

Published: Mar 16, 2024

Words: 642 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Nature versus nurture: an overview, victor frankenstein: a product of nature, nurture's influence on victor, the tragic consequences.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature Social Issues Psychology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3.5 pages / 1506 words

2 pages / 869 words

5 pages / 2411 words

4 pages / 1725 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Frankenstein

Nature plays a crucial role in Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein, serving as both a setting and a powerful symbol throughout the story. From the majestic landscapes of the Swiss Alps to the wild and untamed Arctic regions, [...]

In Mary Shelley's iconic novel Frankenstein, the use of foreshadowing plays a crucial role in building tension and suspense throughout the narrative. From subtle hints to more overt clues, the author skillfully weaves a web of [...]

The theme of isolation is a prevalent and significant aspect in Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein. Throughout the narrative, both Victor Frankenstein and his creation, the Monster, experience various forms of isolation, which [...]

Prejudice is a recurring theme in Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein. Through the interactions and perceptions of various characters, Shelley explores the detrimental effects of prejudice on both the individual and society as a [...]

‘It is vain to expect virtue from women till they are in some degree independent of men” (Mary Wollstonecraft). Feminism regards the role of women in a patriarchal society in which women are often subjugated and even [...]

The classic 1818 novel Frankenstein, written by author Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, is without a doubt an essential piece of literature. This critically acclaimed novel presents the monster, one of literature’s most intriguing [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Frankenstein Nature vs. Nurture

Table of Contents

Introduction

Frankenstein narrates the story of Victor Frankenstein, a smart scientist who successfully gave life to a complete being of his creation. However, the creature’s appearance turned so horrifying that Victor decided to confine and abandon him, hoping he would disappear forever (Allen, 2008). Contrary to Victor’s hopes, the creature breaks out of the confines to explore his surrounding, but the human characters around him assume that he is dangerous based on his horrifying appearance. Consequently, the monster is hurt by the rejection and isolation and turns to revenge on those who caused his suffering, especially his creator, Victor. Inwardly, the creature has a warm and open heart, but the human characters are unable to realize it because they cannot see past their prejudices. According to Frankenstein, the monster developed his cruel traits based on lack of proper nurture since he was abandoned soon after creation. Human intelligence, feelings, behavior, and personality are either learned from the environment and experience or acquired through biological inheritance (Allen, 2008). Therefore, since the monster was not nurtured, it developed into a dangerous creature because of the assault, attacks, and rejection he received from the villages and families, despite his attempts to convey benevolent intentions. In this light, the monster developed his kindness and warm-heartedness from his nature but involved in evil acts because he was exposed to cruelty and was not nurtured.

Isolation, Prejudice, and Lack of Nurture

Frankenstein demonstrates that murder, despair, and all tragedies occur because of the lack of connection to society or family. The main evil in Frankenstein i s not Victor or the monster but isolation from society and lack of nurture (Shelley & Bolton, 2018). Notably, both Victor and the creature suffer because they are detached and isolated from the society. Victor lacks domestic affection when he gets lost in his studies and separates himself from society, making him lose sight of the consequences of his inventions, and he becomes irresponsible. Similarly, the monster is consumed by the desire for vengeance and dangerous traits not because he is evil but due to the isolation which fills him with hate and anger. This is demonstrated when the monster plots to kill people related to Victor to make Victor equally isolated. In addition, the monster suffers isolation and lack of nurture from Victor. In abandonment, the creature seeks nurture desperately, finding the De Laceys family to watch from afar. The monster believes that he needs sympathy and kindness and tries to converse with the De Laceys in hoping to receive nurture, but instead, he gets “dashed to the ground and struck violently with a stick,” demonstrating the cruelty of the human characters around him (Shelley, 2001). Consequently, the violence, rejection, and abandonment inspired the creature to develop a hostile attitude to hurt Victor and “declare everlasting war against human species.” (Shelley, 2001). Therefore, Victor did not nurture and teach the creature to function properly in human society, the creature gets rejected by everyone, leading to his transformation into a vengeful, ruthless monster. This demonstrates that nurture and experience shape personality, behavior, and thinking.

Nature and Innocence

The creature begins life with a kind, warm and open heart, trying to demonstrate his benevolent intentions to human characters. The monster revealed his nature in his assertion that “this trait of kindness moved me sensibly. I had been accustomed, during the night, to steal a part of their store for my consumption, but when I found in doing this I inflicted pain on the cottagers, I abstained and satisfied myself with berries, nuts and roots which I gathered from the neighboring wood.” (Shelley, 2001). This quote demonstrates the creature’s innocence and desire to do good to humans. Additionally, the quote demonstrates nature as a healer and a restorative agent as the monster turned to nature to find food and seek refuge when rejected by humans.

The novel demonstrates that nature and nurture are intertwined in shaping human personality, character, and behavior. The author suggests that inadequate nurturing causes bad behavioral traits and deficiencies, leading to violence and vengeance, as demonstrated by the monster. In addition, the novel portrays nature as a restorative agent for the characters. Nature heals Victor when he is disturbed and restores the monster’s true nature after being rejected by the society. Readers get to understand the monster’s kindness and benevolent actions through nature.

• Allen, G. (2008).  Shelley’s Frankenstein . A&C Black.
• Shelley, M. (2001). Frankenstein [1818].  New York: Oxford .
• Shelley, M., & Bolton, G. (2018). frankenstein. In  Medicine and Literature  (pp. 35-52). CRC Press.
• A Rose for Emily
• Animal Farm
• Death of a Salesman
• Fahrenheit 451
• Flowers for Algernon
• George Orwell's 1984
• Gothic Literature

Monday 06 May 2024

• Leader comment
• Letters to the editor
• Sunday’s readings
• Faith features
• Book reviews
• Visual arts
• Performing arts
• Caption competition
• Out of the question
• 100 years ago

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein : a radical reworking of nature vs. nurture

Michael wheeler celebrates the bicentenary of the first publication, in 1818, of mary shelley’s novel frankenstein.

Theodore von Holst’s illustration on the inside cover of the third edition (1831) of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, first published in 1818

FRANKENSTEIN: Or, the modern Prometheus was published anonymously 200 years ago. A small London publisher produced only 500 copies of the three-volume novel, which was dedicated to the free-thinking philosopher and novelist William Godwin.

The first reviews were negative. “A tissue of horrible and disgusting absurdity,” spluttered the true blue John Wilson Croker, who thought that it must have been written by one of the “out-pensioners of Bedlam” who formed the Godwin school. Croker had in mind Godwin’s son-in-law, the radical atheist Percy Bysshe Shelley. In fact, the book was by Godwin’s daughter, whose name appeared on the title page of the second edition in 1823, a year after Shelley’s death.

Eight years later, Mary Shelley made extensive revisions for the third edition: the version followed in most editions today. The novel that was to be hailed as the first work of science fiction was now firmly hers.

THE fact that Frankenstein offers a radical reworking of such fundamental themes as the origins of life, the origins of evil, and the nature/nurture debate can be explained partly by Mary Shelley’s own origins. Her father’s trajectory from dissenting minister to Deist utopian philosopher and author of Caleb Williams had intersected with that of her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, author of the bestselling Vindication of the Rights of Woman , who died ten days after Mary’s birth in 1797.

Four years later, Godwin married Mary Jane Clairmont, who proved to be an ill-tempered stepmother. A voracious reader, the young Mary Shelley emulated the mother she never knew by “inventing herself” in the midst of family life and surrounded by books.

In 1812, the poet Shelley offered Godwin both adulation and the promise of financial support; by 1814, he and Mary had begun a relationship. In July that year, following Napoleon’s exile to Elba, they eloped to the Continent, taking Mary’s stepsister Claire Clairmont with them. They returned to England in September.

After the birth of a second child to Shelley’s wife, Harriet, the 17-year old Mary herself gave premature birth to a daughter who died, unnamed, in February 1815. In January 1816, her son William was born, and the family set off for Geneva — again with Claire — to meet Byron, Claire’s lover.

It was against this complex relational background that Mary began to write Frankenstein in June, following the famous night on which Byron suggested that they amuse themselves by reading a French translation of some German fantasy tales, several of which seem to have influenced Mary’s novel.

THE title of the work is often misapplied, when the name Frankenstein is taken to be that of the creature rather than his creator — an error that tells us much about the demonisation of “the other”. The popular Frankenstein myth sprang from the numerous stage versions of the story — usually farcical — which made it famous: Miranda Seymour records that, by the end of 1823, five versions had appeared in London.

As the horrors of Frankenstein’s narration unfold in the novel, his nameless “creature” becomes “the wretch”, “the daemon”, “vile insect”, and “the monster”. On stage, and later in film, we often cut to “monster” more quickly.

Similarly, in the novel the actual process of creation is itself unexplained, or unnamed: “It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning . . . when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dully yellow eye of the creature open: it breathed hard, and convulsive motion agitated its limbs.”

On stage and film, the vacuum was filled with electrical “instruments of life”, of the kind that Percy Shelley had played with in his rooms at Oxford, or that Giovanni Aldini had used on the body of a hanged murderer in 1803, when it appeared to bystanders that the wretched man was on the point of being “restored to life”.

THE novel’s subtitle is less ambiguous: The modern Prometheus . The creator of man from clay, who stole fire from the gods as a gift to his creation, is a crafty transgressor. Some feminist interpreters of Frankenstein have read it as a critique of the hubris displayed by male Romantic poets whose desire to create, or recreate the world through the power of the imagination represented an invasion of the feminine domain of giving birth.

OTHER STORIES

Angela tilby: fox’s novels show faith in all its glory.

MY HOLIDAY reading this year included Catherine Fox’s recently published Realms of Glory (Maryle­bone House), the third part of her affectionate satire on contemporary Church of England life in the fic­­tional diocese of Lindchester

More obviously, the novel offers a Gothic reading of the work of male “natural philosophers” — later to be labelled “scientists” — in the Romantic “age of wonder”. Frankenstein speaks of his “secret toil” among the “unhallowed damps of the grave”, and of William and Justine as the first hapless victims of his “unhallowed arts”.

In her author’s introduction to the 1831 edition, Mary Shelley picks up this theme when recalling the evening on which she was a “devout but nearly silent listener” during a conversation between Byron and her husband (they had married in 1816) on galvinism and Erasmus Darwin’s experiments. That night, her imagination, “unbidden”, possessed her: “I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together.”

For the sceptical author who, in 1831, was taking her son Percy to the Temple Church on a Sunday (largely to improve his chances with his grandfather), the effect of “any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world” was “supremely frightful”.

FOR those coming to Frankenstein for the first time, or perhaps rereading the novel in its bicentenary year, it is worth attending to the frequent references to Milton’s Paradise Lost and Coleridge’s The Ancient Mariner : powerful Christian narratives, written by men, on the subject of transgression. Then move on to re-reading Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights , and you will see the strong influence that Frankenstein had on a later modern classic.  

Dr Michael Wheeler is a Visiting Professor at the University of Southampton and chairman of Gladstone’s Library. His books include English Fiction of the Victorian Period, 1830-1890 and St John and the Victorians .  

Read our feature on Frankenstein , 200 years afters its publication You can also read our film review of Mary Shelley here.

Browse Church and Charity jobs on the Church Times jobsite

Other stories

Interview: david crystal, linguistics scholar and writer on the english language.

10 Nov 2017

The Celian Moment and Other Essays edited by Charles Williams & Stephen Barber

02 Jun 2017

New translation of Krylov

28 Apr 2017

Exposing the inadequacy of art

07 Apr 2017

The Faith of William Shakespeare by Graham Holderness

17 Mar 2017

Link with Lewis Carroll helps leaking church fund restoration

6th Sunday after Trinity

05 Jul 2018

Other Topics

Top Feature

Open-mouthed sculptures: ‘The very stones will cry out’

Some medieval figures were carved with open mouths. Kim Woods explains why this was

Job of the Week

Vicar and chaplain, london and home counties.

The Bishop of Southwark, The Diocesan Board of Patronage and Ark All Saints Academy  

Team Rector

We are a Team Ministry in the vibrant town of Billericay with easy access to both London and the countryside.

Priest-in-Charge

“To be willing and faithful servants of God in Bensham and The Teams”  

Situations vacant

Full-time children and families worker.

An exciting opportunity for someone passionate about helping children to discover God’s love for them.

Find more jobs

The Church Times Archive

Read reports from issues stretching back to 1863, search for your parish or see if any of the clergy you know get a mention.

FREE for Church Times subscribers.

Explore the archive

Forthcoming Events

Church times/rscm:, festival of faith and music.

26 - 28 April 2024

See the full programme on the festival website. 

Early bird tickets available

Intercultural Church for a Multicultural World

28 May 2024

A   Church Times /Church House Publishing webinar

Tickets are FREE

Church Times/Modern Church:

A political faith.

Monday 3 June 2024

This panel will explore where Christians have come to in terms of political power and ask, where should we go next?

Online tickets available

Participating in Democracy

Monday 10 June 2024

This panel will explore the power of voting, and power beyond voting.

Green Church Awards

Closing date: 30 June 2024

R ead more details about the awards

Welcome to the Church Times

To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)

Nature and Nurture

Nature Vs. Nurture in Frankenstein: the Battle for Identity

How it works

Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” isn’t just a tale to spook you out on a stormy night; it’s a layered narrative that delves into the intricacies of human identity. Beyond the electrifying experiments and haunting pursuits, the heart of the story lies a poignant question that has gripped philosophers, psychologists, and curious minds for centuries: Are we products of our birth – our inherent nature – or molded by our experiences – the nurture we receive? Dr. Frankenstein’s creature is a symbol, a living (or somewhat living) testament to this debate.

And as we peel back the layers of the novel, we find ourselves questioning not just the monster’s humanity but our own.

• 1 Who’s to Blame: Genes or the World?
• 2 Nurtured to… Nurture?
• 3 Nature Strikes Back
• 4 Conclusion: It’s Both

Who’s to Blame: Genes or the World?

Dr. Frankenstein made his creature out of a mishmash of body parts. Once alive, this poor guy didn’t ask to be here. But from the get-go, he faced hatred, fear, and isolation. I mean, talk about a bad first impression. But did he turn “evil” because he was made that way or because of how he was treated? That’s the million-dollar question.

Some argue that the creature was destined for doom because of his nature – he’s made of dead parts. But others? They point to the trauma and rejection he faced. Imagine being rejected by your creator and then everyone else you meet. Ouch.

Nurtured to… Nurture?

A being, stitched together from the remains of the departed, suddenly comes to life. You’d expect, maybe even assume, that such a creature is destined for malice, right? Well, Shelley throws us a curveball. When Dr. Frankenstein’s creature finds himself alone in the vast world, he seeks refuge near a humble family. Observing from the shadows, he learns about human connections, emotions, and the essence of care.

Instead of rampaging like a mindless beast, the creature demonstrates an innate longing for love and understanding. He assists the family in secret, chopping wood and performing small acts of kindness. Why? Because of their bonds, their warmth influences him. He’s nurturing because he’s been nurtured by their unintentional lessons.

It’s fascinating, really. Despite his macabre origins, the creature shows us that the desire to do good, care, and nurture can emerge even in the most unconventional circumstances. It challenges our preconceptions and poses the question: If a so-called “monster” can exhibit such gentle tendencies after witnessing love, what does it truly say about the power of nurture?

Nature Strikes Back

But let’s not completely rule out nature. The creature had strength. A lot of it. When he snapped, things got destructive. Maybe that’s a bit of his “inborn” character showing up. Or maybe it’s just what happens when someone’s pushed too far. Ever heard the saying, “Cornered animals are the most dangerous”? Kind of fits here, doesn’t it?

The thing with “Frankenstein” is that it’s not just black or white. It’s a dance, a tango between nature and nurture. Dr. Frankenstein’s creature was a product of his unique creation and the world around him.

It’s a reflection of all of us. Sure, we’ve got our genes, our natural inclinations. But our environment and experiences mold us, shape us, and sometimes even twist us. We’re all a bit of Dr. Frankenstein’s creature, trying to find our way in a world that might not always understand or accept us.

Conclusion: It’s Both

So, the next time someone brings up “Frankenstein” in a convo, drop some of this knowledge on them. It’s not just a horror story. It’s a lesson, question, and debate that’s still relevant today. Nature or nurture? The answer isn’t simple. It’s a mix of both. Recognizing that can help us better understand a fictional monster and the real humans around us.

Cite this page

Nature vs. Nurture in Frankenstein: The Battle for Identity. (2023, Sep 07). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/nature-vs-nurture-in-frankenstein-the-battle-for-identity/

"Nature vs. Nurture in Frankenstein: The Battle for Identity." PapersOwl.com , 7 Sep 2023, https://papersowl.com/examples/nature-vs-nurture-in-frankenstein-the-battle-for-identity/

PapersOwl.com. (2023). Nature vs. Nurture in Frankenstein: The Battle for Identity . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/nature-vs-nurture-in-frankenstein-the-battle-for-identity/ [Accessed: 6 May. 2024]

"Nature vs. Nurture in Frankenstein: The Battle for Identity." PapersOwl.com, Sep 07, 2023. Accessed May 6, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/nature-vs-nurture-in-frankenstein-the-battle-for-identity/

"Nature vs. Nurture in Frankenstein: The Battle for Identity," PapersOwl.com , 07-Sep-2023. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/nature-vs-nurture-in-frankenstein-the-battle-for-identity/. [Accessed: 6-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2023). Nature vs. Nurture in Frankenstein: The Battle for Identity . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/nature-vs-nurture-in-frankenstein-the-battle-for-identity/ [Accessed: 6-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Experience the Joy of Learning

• Just Great DataBase

Nature versus Nurture in Frankenstein

Nature versus Nurture in Frankenstein Nature versus nurture; this is a common debate physiologists are in constant question over. In regards to the development of an individual’s personality, some believe that one is born with an innate personality. In the meantime, others believe that one’s personality is developed through experience over their lifetime. Both nature and nurture are major contributors to the development of characters in the story, Frankenstein. In Mary Shelley’s famous novel, Frankenstein, there is evidence that Shelley views Nature of being the more powerful component to the development of a personality.

In the novel, Frankenstein, the main character, Victor Frankenstein, has a natural desire to learn everything he can about natural philosophy. When speaking of his childhood, Victor exclaims, “but by some law in my temperature they were turned not towards childish pursuits, but to an eager desire to learn…my enquiries were directed to the metaphysical or in its highest sense, the physical secrets of the world,” (Shelley 19). Victor Frankenstein admits that his desire to learn is in his own nature, and does take interest in more common childhood preoccupants. Even when his own father disapproves by saying, “‘Ah! Cornelius Agrippa!

My dear Victor, do not waste your time upon this; it is sad trash! ’“ (Shelley 20), Victor still remains loyal to his studies. The outburst given by his father does not have any negative impact over Victor in any way; “But the cursory glance my father had taken of my volume by no means assured me that he was acquainted with its contents; and I continued to read with the greatest avidity,” (Shelley 21). This statement shows that Victor is not worried about the opinions of society or those who are raising him; he knows that studying natural philosophy is his passion, and he plans to continue studying no matter what.

Obviously, Victor does not have anyone to confide in when learning about his studies, therefore, there is no one in his environment who can influence him in this area, which defends Shelley’s view of Nature. Frankenstein acknowledges this and says, “I was, to a great degree, self-taught with regard to my favorite studies. My father was not scientific, and I was left to struggle with a child’s blindness, added to a student’s thirst for knowledge,” (Shelley 21). Frankenstein continues to stay dedicated to his studies even when he goes off to college.

His values on learning are apparent when he says, “In other studies, you go as far as others have gone before you, and there is nothing more to know; but in a scientific pursuit there is continual food for discovery and wonder,” (Shelley 30). He continues to engage in his studies, and when working on his creation, he quotes, “I could not tear my thoughts from my employment,”(Shelley 33). Victor is so involved with his intellectual pursuit that he is not going to let society get in the way of being active in his scientific work.

In the end of the novel, he tells Walton, “Seek happiness in tranquility, and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in scientific discoveries. Yet why do I say this? I have myself been blasted in these hopes, yet another may succeed,” (Shelley 163). Although Frankenstein feels that he did not accomplish anything in the scientific field, he still recognizes the importance of science, and urges Walden to stay true to himself, or his true nature, while learning from his mistakes in the meantime.

The character of Victor Frankenstein is a character born to love science, and he continues to express this throughout the novel Mary Shelley uses examples that support the theory of nature upon Frankenstein’s creature. When the creature is observing the De Lacey’s, he cannot help but notice that there is sadness amongst the family. He cannot help but feel troubled by this; “I saw no cause for their unhappiness, but I was deeply affected by it,” (Shelley 77).

The creature, in his benevolent nature, wants to help the small family, and decides, “I discovered also another means through which I was enabled to assist their labours…during the night, I often took his tools, the use of which I quickly discovered, and brought home firing sufficient for the consumption of several days,” (Shelley 78). The creature receives inner joy when performing such tasks for others, even though they are not even acquainted with him. The creature is soon shunned by the family though, and falls into utter sadness. Despite the unjustly expressions of others, the creature still feels good in him.

He witnesses a young girl slip and fall into a rapid stream, and instinctively reacts by saving her; “I rushed from my hiding-place, and, with extreme labour from the force of the current, saved her, and dragged her to shore,” (Shelley 101). Unfortunately, the human race still does not respond kindly to the creature, which eventually makes him to behave maliciously. While speaking to his creator, Victor, he explains to him, “Instead of threatening, I am content to reason with you. I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned by all mankind? ” (Shelley 104). The creature admits to behaving in an evil manner, and continues to do so.

At the end of the novel, the creature shares with Walton, his feelings while behaving in such monstrous ways. While looking over the body of his creator, he says, “Oh, Frankenstein! Generous and self-devoted being! What does it avail that I now ask thee to pardon me? I, who irretrievably destroyed thee by destroying all thou lovedst,” (Shelley 163). The creature feels incredibly guilty for the evil acts, which he performed. This shows that the creature my have been behaving in a horrible manner, but in the end, he regrets it all, because he had been behaving in such a way that is against his good conscious and personality.

He then reflects upon a few of the murders he committed, “After the murder of Clerval, I returned to Switzerland, heartbroken and overcome. I pitied Frankenstein,” (Shelley 165). The creature feels remorse after allowing himself to behave in a way that does not level up to his innate personality, or in other words, his true nature. The creature created by Frankenstein is born free and good, and although becomes temporarily corrupted by society, he proves to still contain his good aspects of his personality in the end of the novel. In Shelley’s novel, personality derived from nature, is strongly expressed through the character, Elizabeth.

Victor Frankenstein describes her as being beautiful, peaceful, and gentle. He says, “The saintly soul of Elizabeth shone like a shrine-dedicated lamp in our peaceful home…she was the living spirit of love to soften and attract: I might have become sullen in my study, rough through the ardour of my nature, but she was there to subdue me to a semblance of her own gentleness,” (Shelley 20). Elizabeth is the type of person whose radiance and love brightens up everyone’s life. Victor is aware of this and knows he can rely on her to feel better no matter what, because her loving and uplifting personality seems to be in her own nature.

This is also proven after her friend, Justine is accused of murdering their younger brother, William. She says to Victor, “I rely on her innocence as certainly as I do upon my own. Our misfortune is doubly hard to us; we have not only lost that lovely darling boy, but this poor girl, whom I sincerely love, is to be torn away by even a worse fate. If she is condemned, I never shall know joy more. But she will not, I am sure she will not; and then I shall be happy again, even after the sad death of my little William,” (Shelley 53). Elizabeth continues to remain optimistic even though fate in her environment seems to be turning against her.

Near the end, when her and Victor are on their honeymoon, Victor senses that he will be greeted by death that night, and is nervously anticipating this event. Elizabeth can sense that something is troubling him; “ ‘Be happy, my dear Victor,’ replied Elizabeth; ‘there is, I hope, nothing to distress you; and be assured that if a lively joy is not painted in my face, my heart is contented. Something whispers to me not to depend too much on the prospect that is opened before us, but I will not listen to such a sinister voice…What a divine day! How happy and serene all nature appears! ’ “ (Shelley 143).

Even though Elizabeth feels there is something wrong, she refuses to allow such environmental factors destroy that of nature and who she truly is as a person, which is comforting and positive. Although many characters portray the side of nature in the debate, Elizabeth is the character who represents this view the most. In the famous novel, Frankenstein, Mary Shelley uses evidence to suggest that nature is the more powerful component in the development of personality. The main character, Victor Frankenstein, loves scientific studies, and has had a legitimate interest since his early childhood.

The creature that he creates is born to be good, and still proves to hold onto those good virtues towards the end of this novel. The character of Elizabeth is very caring and remains this way for the rest of her life. All three of these characters face horrid events in their lives, but in the end, they all prove to have the innate personality that they had been born with. Shelley views a character’s personality as being predestined and therefore, stands on the side of Nature, in the common debate, Nature versus Nurture.

Author: Jared Russell

Advertisement

Supported by

Critic’s Pick

‘Evil Does Not Exist’ Review: Nature vs. Nurture

Ryusuke Hamaguchi follows up his sublime drama “Drive My Car” with a parable about a rural Japanese village and the resort developer eyeing its land.

• Share full article

By Manohla Dargis

Late in “Evil Does Not Exist,” a man who lives in a rural hamlet an easy drive from Tokyo cuts right to the movie’s haunting urgency. He’s talking to two representatives of a company that’s planning to build a resort in the area that will cover a deer trail. When one suggests that maybe the deer will go elsewhere, the local man asks, “Where would they go?” It’s a seemingly simple question that distills this soulful movie’s searching exploration of individualism, community and the devastating costs of reducing nature to a commodity.

“Evil Does Not Exist” is the latest from the Japanese filmmaker Ryusuke Hamaguchi, who’s best known for his sublime drama “Drive My Car. ” This new movie is more modestly scaled than that one (it’s also far shorter) and more outward-directed, yet similar in sensibility and its discreet touch. It traces what happens when two Tokyo outsiders descend on a pastoral area where the spring water is so pure a local noodle shop uses it in its food preparation. The reps’ company intends to build a so-called glamping resort where tourists can comfortably experience the area’s natural beauty, a wildness that their very patronage will help destroy.

The story unfolds gradually over a series of days, though perhaps weeks, and takes place largely in and around the hamlet. There, the local man, Takumi (Hitoshi Omika), a self-described jack-of-all trades, lives with his daughter, Hana (Ryo Nishikawa), in a house nestled amid mature trees. Together, they like to walk in the woods as she guesses whether that tree is a pine and this one a larch, while he carefully warns her away from sharp thorns. A photograph on their piano of Hana in the arms of a woman suggests why melancholy seems to envelop both child and father, although much about their past life remains obscure.

Hamaguchi eases into the story, letting its particulars surface gradually as Eiko Ishibashi’s plaintive, progressively elegiac score works into your system. The company’s plans for a glamping site give the movie its narrative through line as well as dramatic friction, which first emerges during a meeting between residents and the company reps, Mayuzumi (Ayaka Shibutani) and her brash counterpart, Takahashi (Ryuji Kosaka). The company — its absurd name is Playmode — wants to take advantage of Covid subsidies for its new venture. During the meeting, it emerges that the site’s septic tank won’t be large enough to accommodate the number of guests; the locals rightly worry that the waste will flow into the river.

The scene, one of the longest in the movie, is emblematic of Hamaguchi’s understated realism, which he builds incrementally. The meeting takes place in a basic community center crowded with residents — some had dinner at Takumi’s home the night before — who sit in chairs facing the reps, who, armed with technology, are parked behind laptops and seated before a projector screen. As the reps play a video explaining “glamorous camping,” there’s a cut to Takumi intently watching the promo. The scene soon shifts to a tracking shot of deer tracks in snow and images of Hana playing in a field as a bird soars above; it’s as if Takumi were thinking of his joyful, distinctly unglamorous daughter. The scene shifts back to the meeting.

The site will become “a new tourist hot spot,” Takahashi sums up, badly misreading his audience. “Water always flows downhill,” a village elder says in response, his thin, firm voice rising as he sweeps an arm emphatically downward. “What you do upstream will end up affecting those living downstream,” stating a law of gravity that’s also a passionate, quietly wrenching argument for how to live in the world.

Lapidary, word by word, detail by detail, juxtaposition by juxtaposition, “Evil Does Not Exist” beautifully deepens. For the most part, the movie is visually unadorned, simple, direct. Hamaguchi tends to move the camera in line with the characters, for one, though the exceptions carry narrative weight: images of nearby Mount Fuji; a rearview look from inside a car at a fast-disappearing road; and a lovely traveling shot of soaring treetops, their branches framed against the sky. The canopied forest echoes an image in a short film by Masaki Kobayashi , who began directing after World War II; the title of his trilogy, “The Human Condition,” would work for every Hamaguchi movie I’ve seen.

I have watched “Evil Does Not Exist” twice, and each time the stealthy power of Hamaguchi’s filmmaking has startled me anew. Some of my reaction has to do with how he uses fragments from everyday life to build a world that is so intimate and recognizable — filled with faces, homes and lives as familiar as your own — that the movie’s artistry almost comes as a shock. The dreamworld of movies often feels at a profound remove from ordinary life, distance that brings its own obvious pleasures. It’s far rarer when a movie, as this one does, speaks to everyday life and to the beauty of a world that we neglect even in the face of its calamitous loss. When Takumi asks “where would they go,” he isn’t just talking about deer.

Evil Does Not Exist Not rated. In Japanese, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 46 minutes. In theaters.

Manohla Dargis is the chief film critic for The Times. More about Manohla Dargis

Explore More in TV and Movies

Not sure what to watch next we can help..

The Netflix stalker series “ Baby Reindeer ” combines the appeal of a twisty thriller with a deep sense of empathy. The ending illustrates why it’s become such a hit .

We have entered the golden age of Mid TV, where we have a profusion of well-cast, sleekly produced competence, our critic writes .

The writer-director Alex Garland has made it clear that “Civil War” should be a warning. Instead, the ugliness of war comes across as comforting thrills .

Studios obsessively focused on PG-13 franchises and animation in recent years, but movies like “Challengers” and “Saltburn” show that Hollywood is embracing sex again .

If you are overwhelmed by the endless options, don’t despair — we put together the best offerings   on Netflix , Max , Disney+ , Amazon Prime  and Hulu  to make choosing your next binge a little easier.

Sign up for our Watching newsletter  to get recommendations on the best films and TV shows to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.