Victor Frankenstein Essay Example for Free

Victor Frankenstein EssayHe uses imagery to give examples for how he felt, like when he says I crept from my kennel as though he was a disgraced dog, and treated like an animal. At this point, the reader may nonplus changed their views virtually the creation, just when Frankenstein certainly hasnt. He knows about how well spoken the junky is and thinks of it as a trick, to lure people into keeping him company. He says to Robert Walton that the creature is eloquent and persuasive, and once his words had a power over my heart but trust him not. Frankenstein still believes the creature is to blame.When Walton sees the creature for the first time, he believes what Frankenstein told him on his deathbed. He says I beheld a vision so horrible as his face, of such(prenominal) loathsome yet app on the wholeing hideousness. It shows the reader how the nuts appearance somehow overshadows the beauty of its speech. Finally, Shelley uses some archaic language to show the historical cont ext of the book. She uses the word deamon when Frankenstein refers to the monster and this spelling of the word is no longer utilize. Shelley chose this word to describe the creature because it has connotations of the devil and evil ways.This links in with Shelleys society and religion because e trulyone was religious and victimisation the word deamon would show just how much hate Frankenstein had for his monster. Frankenstein, by using this particular word for the creature, shows how he feels that he is the innocent one. When the monster speaks, his language is very fluent, smooth and flowing which links in well with the Romantic Movement, which was very much around at the time, the book was written. The structure of the book is very fire as it starts at the end, then goes back in time to explain the recital.This gives the reader a chance to hear Frankensteins side of the story as he tells it to Robert Walton. The first part of the book is written as epistolary. This means it i s written as a form of letters put together into a story. First, at that place argon letters from Robert Walton to his sister Margaret. These letters make it clear that he has an obsession, much like Frankensteins, about reaching the North Pole. He then mentions that he has met a stranger, and goes on to inform Margaret of Frankensteins story. We hear Frankensteins story, right up to where he reaches Waltons ship, and then it continues in the form of epistolary.The structure is very interesting, because Walton writes about his own story to Margaret and his story includes Frankensteins story which also includes the creatures story. So Walton who is writing to his sister (and the audience) communicates all three stories in his letters. The narrative structure is very clever, because I think the comparable end would deport happened to Walton if Frankenstein hadnt have come along and informed him of the dangers of obsessions, it would have ruined his life, as the creation of the mons ter ruined Frankensteins.It was obviously morally hurt of Frankenstein to devote his life to his obsession, where his life was perfect before this fixation with natural philosophy. He shunned his friends, and if he had not done this to create the monster, they would not have all been killed. There are many points where the reader does not know whether he was morally wrong or not, and the best example of this is when he decides to make the creature. It would have been morally wrong to unnaturally create life in the 19th century, but there is more leeway today as there are so many different views on genetic engineering.Taken as a whole, I think that Victor Frankenstein was morally reprehensible. Even in the twenty-first century, where the creation of life is more frequent, I think it was morally wrong to take body parts from dead people. I think he should have realised the terrible consequences of his actions before he went ahead with the creation. He did so much research into natura l philosophy and he should have realised from his ponder that he needed to learn from other peoples experiences. His obsession with being the first got in the way of him thinking straight. I think Frankenstein leaving the monster to bear for himself was also morally wrong.All human beings are cared for once they are born, so leaving the monster alone is suggesting that he isnt human and doesnt deserve to be treated as one. As the creature was often out in the open, this gave him a chance to be shunned and discriminated against by society which introduced the feelings of hatred and aggression which were used later on to destroy Frankensteins happiness. Frankenstein is really responsible, because if he were not so obsessed with natural philosophy and the death of his mother, he would never have developed a passion for saving life and would never have discovered that creating life was possible.He only had himself to blame for the destruction caused by the creature not only to himsel f but to those he loved. Frankenstein never really admitted the responsibility, he said that God gave him the power, I found such astonishing power placed upon my hands, I hesitated a long time concerning the manner in which I should employ it and though he did take a long time to think about what to do, he reached never realised the full outcome of his decision.Although he realised his mistake at the end, and tried to put someone off making the same one, he never admitted the responsibility out loud. So, in conclusion to the title, Id say that Victor Frankenstein is a very morally reprehensible character. Show preview only The above preview is unformatted text This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Mary Shelley section.