In this blog post, I will interpret Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ through the lens of the “two Adams” to examine the tragedy and moral responsibility entangled between the creator and the creation.
The Plot and Tragic Atmosphere of the Work
Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ is a tale of ruin brought about by a genius scientist’s forbidden quest. When a young scientist uses a mysterious discovery to create life and fashion a hideous being, that creature becomes an object of revulsion and fear in society. The dark atmosphere pervading the entire work and its melancholic ending evoke in the reader a deep sense of unease and sympathy at the same time.
The creature’s loneliness, anguish, and the destruction that ensues are not merely part of a monster narrative. The scientist rejected the creature’s plea—a request to create a mate—and the resulting murders and catastrophe ultimately backfired on both the creator and the creature. This story leaves a strong impression that the source of the tragedy lies, in the end, with the creator himself.
Two Failures: Creation and a Lack of Responsibility
Frankenstein’s most obvious mistake was the very choice to create a living being in the first place. By abandoning a stable family life filled with love and stepping into forbidden territory, he committed an act that shattered his own happiness. If the act of creation itself was the first failure, then turning a blind eye to the creature’s suffering and categorically rejecting its plea can be considered the second failure.
Some readers may argue that by preventing the creation of the female monster, he averted a greater tragedy. However, the view that a creator has a duty to provide their creation with at least the opportunity to pursue a life and happiness is also persuasive. If the creator evades responsibility for his actions and deprives the creature of even the chance to lead a humane life, this can only be judged as an irresponsible act.
The scene in which Frankenstein tears apart the female monster’s body appears to be the result of being swayed by his own emotions and fears, rather than a mere expression of fear. The fact that he was concerned only with future dangers, without seriously considering the safety of his family or his responsibility toward his creation, reveals that he was foolish and selfish.
Two Adams: The Contrast Between the Creature and the Creator
In the novel, the creature compares himself to “Adam” in an attempt to be recognized by the creator as an equal. However, from the very beginning, he lacked the conditions that Adam enjoyed—a gentle appearance, social acceptance, and guidance regarding his identity. His hideous appearance, ignorance, and the hatred and contempt of those around him demonstrate that he cannot be an “Adam” in the traditional sense.
In fact, the creature is, in many ways, a more pitiable being. He endured violence and hatred with patience, attempted to plead with his creator, and tried to suppress his own emotions. Although he faced extremely unfavorable circumstances, he demonstrated a inherently good nature. In contrast, Frankenstein—who not only violated Adam’s taboo by creating life but also ignored the creature’s human needs—resembles “Adam’s image” but is by no means a morally exemplary figure.
This contrast goes beyond a simple comparison of characters; it prompts us to reflect on the relationship between creator and creation, responsibility and neglect, and nature and nurture. While the creature’s actions cannot be fully justified, it is necessary to strive to understand the origins of his violence.
Moral Questions and Critical Reflection
The central moral questions here are as follows: Can the murder committed by the creature—who suffered due to his hideous appearance and social ostracism—be morally justified? And does the responsibility for that suffering and tragedy lie entirely with the Creator, or does it also partly belong to others who ostracized him, or did chance and circumstantial factors also play a role?
The answer to this question is not simple. While the killing of the creature is clearly subject to moral condemnation, it is essential to examine where his actions originated and who first brought about his misfortune. The view that the creator bears some responsibility is valid, but this does not absolve the creature of all blame for his actions. Responsibility is multilayered, involving a complex interplay of the creator, society, and personal choice.
Finally, to minimize confusion in the text, it is advisable to use terms such as “Frankenstein” and “the monster” consistently. The core of the story lies not in the accuracy of the names, but in reflecting on how creation and responsibility, as well as empathy and cruelty toward others, give rise to tragedy.
Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ is not merely a horror novel but a mirror reflecting the dark side and fragility of human nature. The tragic conflict between the creator and the creature—the “two Adams”—compels us to consider the necessity of responsibility, compassion, and self-reflection. Through this work, we are reminded that everyone possesses both cruelty and compassion within themselves.
