Many people have heard of Frankenstein as the scary monster that everyone feared, but little did you know that was not even the name of the technology-bred beast, but the name of creator whose identity may resemble a beast in itself.

The real story of Frankenstein is one in which many people don’t know. Over the years, just like media always does, the story has been altered and has lost its true meaning.  Mary Shelley created the monster as much less evil and more human than storybooks read to children portray. One of the biggest differences between the modern and the real story of Frankenstein is the name itself. The true name of the monster was never revealed, instead many gave it the last name of his creator, Victor Frankenstein. Although perhaps that was society’s intent while repurposing this story, to refer to the real monster himself, Mr. Victor Frankenstein; the man who created and abandoned a creature that was capable of destruction. Shelley did not give the hideous creature a name, perhaps for a reason. To not name something dehumanizes it and makes that thing an It – lack of idnetiy due to no name fear of unknown Yet she gives it such human characteristics by allowing the beast to talk, read, learn another language and even have the capabilities of emotions. Connect better, Sometimes the real monster is not the hideous beast standing in front of you, but rather the beast looking back at you in the mirror. Marry Shelley related Frankenstein’s creation as the product of neglect and lack of responsibility by the creator, a situation all too relevant to today’s society. specify that mary shelley wrote the book

A controversy discussed by many regarding this science-fiction novel is the idea of who the “bad” person is in the story line. Would you believe me if I said that I perceived the story to be more about showing the horrors of man, not beast? The monster did not choose to be created, he did not choose to look the way that he did, he did not choose to be rejected by everyone around him. As he tells Victor when he approached him in the Alps, “I am malicious because I am miserable.” emphasize what the deeper reasoning is. analyze. There is no moral excuse for the monster’s killing spree, but there may have been a deeper reasoning for Shelley having the monster express this to his creator and possess such strong emotions. When the beast was created, he was brought to the world and left to interact with no one but himself. He discusses with Victor how hard it was for him to even walk around because people would scream in fear at his appearance; Even his own creator left him. clarify that i think the monster is a monster bc of doctor, there are two monsters. don’t contradict. 

The creature’s situation reminds me of many that occur in today’s society where children are left by their parents to fend for themselves. Not all may have such horrid an appearance as the beast, but the situations are parallel. Both an orphan and the beast have no parents, no one to take care of them. In today’s society, most children find families and experience love and affection and are given an education and a life. Yet there are still instances where they grow up to be awful people who break the law, and most blame it on their upbringing. So what do we have to say for this beast created by Victor? Should he not be expected to act the same way as these children grow up to be, if not worse? He was rejected love by everyone around him, even the person that gave life to him. He did not get to experience the true meaning of kindness and a relationship. How can you show something when you don’t even know what it is? All Victor ever showed to the monster was coldness and resentment, even though it was completely Victor’s fault for everything that had happened. Yes, the beast killed everyone Victor loved, but he gave Victor an ultimatum, he gave him a chance to fix things. Victor Frankenstein was the true beast, he was as my professor stated, “science’s hideous prodigy,” the man behind the blood. He was to society what the monster was to him; creating a killing machine that didn’t stop until it killed him too. Fix choppy sentences. Provide a good example of when victor is monster.

The idea of Victor creating a killing machine along with hearing about the story of Golem, emphasize Golem although fictional, made me ponder the thought of our capabilities as man. Professor Fleming said in class “why is nuclear power frightening? Because it’s a new way to die.” I have always known how destructive man can be, the fact that we have enough nuclear bombs to destroy Earth more than once is horrifying. We create these objects to preform tasks that we think will better our lives and protect us, yet they are the ones that end up terminating us. How long will the world go until we end up having stories like Frankenstein and The Golem come true? How long until we determine our fate of death or push towards a new leaf and pursue more responsible and idealistic inventions? always assume audience is dumb, explain things better. emphasize 

doctor frankensteins mnster is symbol for what man does, these are examples. I think one big idea that should be learned from reading this book would be the responsibility factor and the immense impact that scientists and engineers can have on the world. This makes me think of instances where scientists may have created a deadly disease while experimenting with bacteria. If they were not careful enough, the disease could breech and could kill many people. Similar to Frankenstein using science to alter the notion that ‘after death there is nothing,’ he created something fatal; an 8-foot-tall hideously ugly creation. This science-fiction tale was created in the 19th century, but perhaps it foreshadowed an idea that led to many events in the world’s history. For example, in 1977 the H1N1 influenza pandemic occurred because scientists who were trying to develop a vaccine for the disease were mishandling the strain, leading to it escaping the facility. Many even believe that AIDs was created by man, a disease that has a death toll of about 35 million people. Despite all of these unfortunate events, scientists are still creating new diseases and their lack of caution has led to drastic outcomes. I wonder if some people had interpreted Shelley’s depiction of science as something that needs to be done with much more caution than as it was done with Frankenstein earlier. doesn’t make sense. Perhaps there would be more people on this earth that would not have been lost to technology’s disasters; perhaps we would have had a realization sooner, one that could have saved us from ourselves. start each paragraph by talking in vain of frankensteins monster. Relate back to thesis. 


Provide better background. When talking in paragraph, topic is same throughout paper even though points are diff. 

Works cited: