So Iām a big fan of Frankenstein (like a really big fan), and it has really been bothering me that people online canāt seem to grasp the main themes of the book. The book is all about nuance and sympathy and understanding both sides of the story, there is no āgood guyā in Frankenstein, there is no āheroā there isnāt even a set protagonist because the book switches between two main characters who are each the antagonist in each others story.
You are supposed to feel sympathy for both Victor and The Creature, they are both sympathetic characters who do horrendously awful things, and I wish people would stop acting like you have to pick one to be āin the rightā. They are both in the wrong. But you can understand why they make the decisions they do; Victor was wrong to abandon the creature when he wasnāt the ābeautifulā thing he intended to create but I know that if I were in the same situation I may also have ran away from the terrifying looking accumulation of corpses that I had made, The Creature was wrong to kill all of those people, obviously, literally their only crime was being related to Victor in some way, but I also know that he was justified in the rage that he felt towards Victor, and I understand that (as a crime against nature that had never been shown kindness or taught literally anything about how the world works besides what he learnt from eavesdropping) he didnāt know how to express his feelings in a less violent way.
Obviously you can have a favourite, you can have one that you like more, of course you can. You canāt however, act like you have moral superiority over anyone else because you have the ācorrect takeā on the book, there is no correct take, thatās the point. The book aims to pose questions about morality and whether goodness is inherent, and who is really responsible for the evil in our society, is it the individual or is it their environment. And thatās what makes it so fascinating!














