Storytelling: Fictional Narratives, Imaginary People, and the Reader's Real Life

Nature vs. Nurture?

What is the final verdict in terms of the Creature's good or evil identity? This is a question my students struggle with, especially since they don't want to let go of the fact that at some point, the Creature stops being a child, and becomes an individual responsible for his actions. By looking at Rousseau's theory of natural man, my students get a fuller and more complex view of the Creature as a being who makes his own decisions.

We begin our understanding of nature vs. nurture by analyzing Rousseau's philosophy of natural man. According to Rousseau's claim, the Creature aligns to a "natural man" because he has a balanced set of defects and virtues. This "natural man" may begin lacking the ability to speak and reason, but is stronger and survives unbelievable circumstances, as the Creature did in surviving the unforgiving societal and environmental challenges he faced. In contrast, the average human being may have the ability to speak and reason, but placed in the same challenging situations would not survive. Rousseau's theory would also point to the Creature's independence and natural sense of pity, a trait that he is not afforded by society. Ultimately, students will understand the Creature's monstrosity is in part a social construction, not an innate part of him but placed upon him by society without his choice. ²⁵ The Creature explains his behavior by stating, "My vices are the children of forced solitude that I abhor; and my virtues will necessarily arise when I live in communion with an equal." ²⁶ Yet, when does man (or creature) take responsibility for his actions? My students need to discuss this idea of accountability, and at what point does age and inexperience stop becoming an excuse for immoral behavior?

At this point, I would like to present to my students local questions in our community, such as the juvenile justice law in California that allows for a fourteen year old to be tried as an adult in serious cases of gang crimes, sexual offenses, and murder. Does a fourteen year old truly belong in a prison alongside hardened criminals? Will this fourteen-year-old leave prison worse then when he went in? Should this fourteen year old be given a more adequate sentence with a better chance at rehabilitation? The debate will ultimately center on how to address this issue of justice and punishment given that this fourteen year old "child" would have the knowledge that when you hold a gun in your hand, you point it at someone, you place your forefinger on the trigger and squeeze, a bullet will dislodge and will pierce through flesh and tissue, and what will be left is a dead body on the floor. Once again, the discussion will move towards the question of when the Creature can be held accountable for his actions, when he knew right from wrong.

While some students may continue in their sympathy with the Creature, others may align themselves with Victor by noting that the Creature can be nothing but evil given his actions. Victor looks at his creature, and exclaims, "Abhorred monster! Fiend that thou art! Tortures of hell are too mild a vengeance for they crimes wretched devil!" ²⁷ At this point, students who have taken the view that the Creature is evil remain steadfast in their belief that the Creature, regardless of his emotional turmoil, must be held accountable for the lives he has taken: William, Justine, Henry Clerval, and ultimately Victor. The students who find the Creature fully responsible for these deaths align themselves with Dante Alighieri's assertion that man is full of free will and choice. Dante supports the concept that while God is all knowing, all good, and all-powerful, man falls extremely short of acquiring any sense of innate goodness as he is inherently evil and will falter through his own choice. The Creature may perceive his evil to come from society's cruel treatment of him rather than some innate predilection for evil. In contrast, Dante would argue that evil actions result from the free will and choice of man and that knowledge brings salvation and redemption, something the Creature never reaches. ²⁸

Before moving into the structure of the novel, I compare the two editions of Frankenstein to offer my students yet another interpretation of the novel. Mary Shelley's 1818 edition presents, although subtly, Victor as having the ability to make decision regarding the Creature. This edition displays Victor as having the free will to make meaningful and ethical choices at the critical points in the novel. Victor could have abandoned his quest for the source of life, he could have cared for his creature, and he could have protected Elizabeth. In contrast, Shelley's 1831-revised edition portrayed Victor in a less capable role. Rather, the emphasis is placed on destiny, thereby allowing Victor to not have the moral choices placed in front of him. Many of his decisions are really not his "free will" but activated by fate. His academic passion of the sciences is "attributed to chance—or rather the evil influence; the Angel of Destruction, which asserted omnipotent sway over me." ²⁹ Justine and William's death are not the result of Victor's silence, but rather a curse imposed by "inexorable fate." Victor, Justine, and Elizabeth each poignantly attribute their fates to "immutable laws" or an "omnipotent "will" to which mankind must "learn...to submit in patience." ³⁰