Frankenstein’s monster doesn’t deserve any sympathy; he’s pure evil. I know this contradicts the opinions of the characters in the book. He does suffer mightily and unfairly despite all efforts at kindness.
The problem is that his solution is to create another to suffer as he has. He even instructs the Doctor to make her hideous like him so that she’ll have no choice but to be his companion. The doctor wonders if this will be enough to stop the “bride” from going rogue.
These are the only two times in the novel anyone considers that the “bride” might have motivation or pathos of her own.
He also refers to his potential bride as the “female” which, well ya know.
My take is that Frankenstein is a surname, and, as Victor was the monster’s progenitor, they are both Frankenstein. If the context is clear enough for some pedant to “well, actually”, then it is clear enough to understand which Frankenstein is being discussed.
Personally I think it’s ok to call the monster (or that style of monster) ‘a Frankenstein’ on the basis that it was created by Dr. Frankenstein the same way you’d call a painting by Picasso ‘a Picasso’.
My favorite name he was ever given is Deucalion.
What does that mean?
It’s Dean Koontz’s Frankenstein, not sure how popular that series was… The monster was named Deucalion, he was a good persona if I remember right… and he could teleport around the world.
I’m sorry, did you say a teleporting Frankenstein that does good?!? Sounds amazing lol
Yeah, not something I’m familiar with personally, but considering what a huge author he is, I’m sure a lot of people here recognize it.
