Examples Of Lack Of Sympathy In Frankenstein

An engaged reading of Frankenstein raises the question: What can our sympathy or lack of sympathy for the monster say about the ourselves? A survey of scholarship on Frankenstein provides insight on this question. In her essay “A Critical History on Frankenstein”, Joanna Smith provides a summary of the criticism of the novel since its publication. Percy Shelly and those of the early 19th century critiques of Frankenstein highlight who is to be responsible for the monster’s behavior and the moral impression on the audience. In the second half of the 20th century, criticism shifted from the focus on the low culture aspect of the novel to the high culture sphere. Critics emphasized Shelly’s political and philosophical views while others turned to the literary aspects of the

The answer to this question is twofold: if a person feels sympathy for the monster, then that says the person is more understanding but if the person does not feel sympathy then that reveals he or she is more focused on justice. The people that feel sympathy for the monster view Frankenstein’s creation as human and similar to a child. Frankenstein had an obligation to his creation just as mothers have obligations to their children. These people blame Frankenstein for the monster’s actions because the monster was acting out in the only way it knew how to, similar to how children misbehave to receive attention. Those who lack sympathy for the monster are focused on it’s wrongdoings and the effect it had on others. The creature knew about the human laws and was intelligent enough to recognize its crimes as wrongdoings. The creature had choice and still chose to commit crimes rather than leave his creator, who clearly did not want him, alone. Feelings of sympathy or a lack of sympathy for the monster can reveal personal characteristics about the