Eleanor Reft
It is surprising to most modern readers of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818)
that the Creature can speak and express himself so eloquently. In the pervasive pop
culture perception, the Creature is incapable of communication and intellectual
thought. This discrepancy, between the novel and this popular perception, is at first
confusing. It might be assumed that if the Creature can communicate so clearly, then
he should be accepted by society, at least prior to his acts of violence spurred by
society’s rejection of him. Some might find that the self-taught, informal nature of the
Creature’s education conveys that he would have been accepted by society if he had
received a formal education like his creator, Victor Frankenstein. However, it is also
possible that the Creature’s education equals Victor’s and that his ostracization from
society is due to something deeper than mere intellect.
Alan Rogers notes that the novel features three types of learning:
formal, nonformal, and informal. Formal learning is defined as “a result of experiences in an
education or training institution, with structured learning objectives, learning time and
support which leads to certification. Formal learning is intentional from the learner’s
perspective” (15). Nonformal learning is “learning [that] is not provided by an
education or training institution and typically does not lead to certification. It is,
however, structured […]. Nonformal learning is intentional from the learner’s
perspective.” Finally, informal learning “results from daily life activities related to
work, family, or leisure. It is not structured […] and typically does not lead to
certification. Informal learning may be intentional but in most cases it is nonintentional.”
From these definitions, it is clear that the bulk of Victor Frankenstein’s
education is that of formal learning, as it occurred in an accredited institution that
provided certification. In contrast, the Creature’s education is wholly an example of
informal and, later, nonformal learning, as the Creature’s education shifts from
unintentional and unstructured, to intentional and structured.
The Creature begins his existence with no family or background, experiencing
informal education as he navigates the world, such as learning the properties of fire: “I
found a fire […], and was overcome with delight at the warmth I experienced from it.
In my joy I thrust my hand into the live embers, but quickly drew it out again with a
cry of pain. How strange, I thought, that the same cause should produce such opposite
effects!” (75). The Creature, having only experienced cold, marvels at fire’s ability to
provide warmth and inflict pain. He continues to learn of the world through his daily
experiences and struggle for survival until he arrives at the De Lacey house, where
through observation the Creature learns language, social norms, and culture: “I found
that these people possessed a method of communicating their experience and
feelings to one another by articulate sounds. […] This was indeed a godlike science,
and I ardently desired to become acquainted with it” (81). Through intentional,
continual observation, with structure and a goal in mind, the Creature masters
language and later develops himself intellectually by studying books that he
serendipitously acquires.
As compared to Victor’s education, the Creature’s is far from formal and exists
outside a standard system. While the Creature comes from nothing, Victor’s
aristocratic background, wealthy family, resources, and connections allow him to
attend a university. Through a large educational institution like Ingolstadt, Victor
obtains a proper, formal education that provides him with worldly knowledge. This
education stands in contrast to that of the Creature, whose education is limited to a
single-family unit and few resources. Victor’s higher education is concrete, as he is
admired by the other students and faculty, going on to become a distinguished student
at Ingolstadt: “My ardour was indeed the astonishment of the students; and my
proficiency, that of the masters. […] I made some discoveries in the improvement of
some chemical instruments, which procured me great esteem and admiration at the
university” (33). Victor’s ability to excel at Ingolstadt cements him as a great scientist
in the minds of his professors and fellow students, emphasizing the gap between
himself and the Creature.
Due to Victor’s accomplishments and his high standing at the university, it can
be argued that Victor’s formal, worldly education gives him an elevated status as
compared to the Creature’s isolated informal and nonformal education.
The self-taught nature of the Creature’s accomplishments seems rather unimpressive against
the groundbreaking scientific work that Victor has achieved. While Victor undertook
vigorous coursework and absorbed information from a multitude of texts, the Creature
has only read three books in his lifetime, once again reinforcing the inward, isolated
nature of his education. Under this reasoning, one can assume that society is justified
in rejecting the Creature. Had the Creature been formally educated, with the same
resources Victor enjoyed, then the Creature would have been embraced by society in
the same way as Victor.
However, even if the Creature had been formally educated, he still would not
have been accepted by society. The Creature and Victor, despite their different
educational styles, possess the same keen intellect. The Creature accomplishes feats
similar to those of Victor given his circumstances. As Claudia Rozas Gómez writes,
the Creature’s application to learning about the De Laceys and their language is
comparable to Victor’s fervent application to the sciences: “In the same way that
Victor commits himself to his study, the Creature commits himself with the same
rigour, giving his [constant attention] to studying the cottagers” (365). The Creature’s
later mastery of language and literacy, in a fairly short span of time, speaks to his
perceptiveness and intelligence, much in the same vein as Victor’s quick mastery of
natural philosophy.
Furthermore, the Creature’s accomplishment of speech proves shocking to
others, due to the other characters’ perception of his distinct nonhuman appearance.
Rochelle Rives comments on how Walton reacts to the marvel of what he sees as a
nonhuman entity mastering the art of speech: “Walton is dismayed by the monster’s
mimicry of human utterance precisely because it undermines the presumption of a
unique and individually incarnated human subject. What does it mean if this monster,
which cannot be granted the status of a subject (at least by the humans surrounding
him), is the source of enunciation?” (348). The reactions of characters like Walton,
and even Victor himself, show that the perception of the Creature as nonhuman
makes his articulate speech incredibly impressive to those who encounter him. Rives’
statements on the Creature’s monstrous appearance further establish the Creature as an
“other.” Oftentimes, people outside the formal education system, such as those in
places without access to formal education or those lacking the resources to obtain
formal education, are sometimes treated as less than human or are considered
“flawed” in their humanity due to the nature of their education, making them an
“other.”
Despite the limits of the Creature’s education, he still gains comprehensive
emotional intelligence. As the Creature observes the De Lacey family, he judges them
as extremely generous people: “The more I saw of them, the greater became my desire
to claim their protection and kindness; […] I dared not think that they would turn
them from me with disdain and horror. The poor that stopped at their door were never
driven away” (96). The De Laceys are kind enough to welcome the poor and destitute
at their door, demonstrating their charity and inadvertently teaching the Creature
compassion. These characteristics make the De Laceys the perfect subjects for the
Creature to study and emulate, as they steer him toward acceptance of himself and
others, at least before their crushing rejection of the Creature.
In addition, although the Creature’s worldview is limited to the few texts to
which he is exposed, he still obtains a levelheaded perspective and awareness of
human nature, that is, prior to his acts of violence. While the Creature’s violent
outbursts are key to the novel’s narrative, they occur after his genuine attempts at
human connection. His actions up until his rejection by the De Lacey family are all
sincere, based in what he has learned, and aptly demonstrate his keen understanding
of human nature. Gómez elaborates on the effectiveness of the Creature’s education in
connecting him with others: “The production of knowledge cannot happen in a
manner that is disconnected from others and from the world. […] The more the
Creature learns about the De Lacey family, the more he feels connected to them” (363,
365). As much as the Creature’s education is restricted and isolated in scope, it is also
open to the experiences of the everyday, the real world and the real feelings of others,
something that Victor’s education lacked. Furthermore, although formal education is
often touted as a guaranteed way to adequately socialize the young and connect them
with the world, a strong disconnect still exists between academia and the “real world.”
The nature of academia in higher education is often far removed from the practical
challenges of the everyday.
Despite all his advantages and accomplishments, Victor’s education is lacking.
Although Victor possesses all the resources to become a great scientist, and often has
acted as one, his education is inhibited by his obsession with the outdated, pseudoscientific teachings of writers like Cornelius Agrippa. Prior to arriving at Ingolstadt,
Victor explains his progress in natural philosophy to his professor, M. Krempe, who
dismisses and belittles his readings in pseudoscience: “‘[E]very instant that you have
wasted on those books is utterly and entirely lost. You have burdened your memory
with exploded systems, and useless names’” (30). However, M. Krempe’s firm
condemnation of Victor’s fixation with these old readings and later recommendation
of newer, more credible resources did not fully persuade Victor to step away from
pseudoscience.
Victor suffered from a stubborn, self-centered, reclusive nature, often ignoring
those, such as M. Krempe, who tried to dissuade him from pursuing such old texts.
Even when Victor started to look past his attachment to archaic texts, he still held on
to some pseudoscientific ideas, including reanimating dead organisms. In describing
his excitement at the prospect of creating life, Victor’s self-serving nature is exposed:
“Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and
pour a torrent of light into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator
and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me” (35).
Victor’s motivation for creating life is rooted in the elevation of his status,
emphasizing the gratitude that his creation will “owe” him. Victor’s fixation with
bestowing life and achieving godlike power leads to his disconnection from society.
His ambitions and need to increase his own status overtake ethics and personal
responsibility. The outcome of Victor’s actions shows that the style of education one
receives does not necessarily guarantee successful social learning. Victor had every
opportunity to become a renowned and respected scientist, but factors beyond the
scope of formal education, such as his temperament and selfishness, prevent him from
achieving such goals.
In this way, Victor is a foil for the Creature, as he lacks empathy and does not
look beyond himself and his desires in his formal education. Meanwhile, the Creature
gains empathy and social connection through his informal and nonformal education:
“Unlike Victor, the Creature’s pursuit of knowledge through observed conversations,
stories, songs and everyday experiences enables him to develop empathy and social
connectedness with others” (Gómez 367). The Creature learns what Victor had failed
to learn: how to recognize and empathize with the feelings of others. Although the
Creature later lashes out, he approaches people with the desire and ability to
empathize with them, whereas Victor is usually unfeeling but able to escape scrutiny
due to his privilege.
What is notable, however, is that, despite Victor’s internal alienation from
others and the world, he is still accepted and embraced by society. In comparison, the
Creature, who learned empathy and how to care for others, and who actively sought
out positive social interaction, was always rejected from society. After confronting
Victor on the mountaintop, the Creature expresses the impossibility of acceptance
despite his attempts at connection: “‘Believe me, Frankenstein: I was benevolent; my
soul glowed with love and humanity: but am I not alone, miserably alone? You, my
creator, abhor me; what hope can I gather from your fellow creatures, who owe me
nothing? they spurn and hate me’” (73). Even though the Creature possesses kindness
and compassion for others, he is still deeply hated, condemned to be alone regardless
of his empathy and intellect.
This outcome leads to the notion that education does not affect status in
Frankenstein. Although it is often thought that education can bridge gaps between
those divided by social hierarchies, the hopelessness of the Creature’s situation
demonstrates the exact opposite. Brian E. Harper discusses the larger societal forces
that impact the Creature beyond education, relating these forces to those experienced
by modern black students: “Victor Frankenstein’s creation is defined by his
environment. The reaction to his presence within that context is largely negative,
which inspires an unhealthy self-conception” (231). The Creature’s struggle is similar
to that of people of color who face challenges with the inequality produced by racism.
Such struggles both stem from discrimination based on appearance. In formal
education, black and other minority students are often forced to contend with societal
structures, based in racism, that tell them they will not succeed (Harper 232). These
barriers greatly inhibit development and progression in socioeconomic status for
minority students, much in the same way that social barriers inhibit the Creature
(Harper 232). Due to societal prejudice, the Creature learns to think of himself
negatively, as someone unworthy of love. At first, the Creature resolves that
education, and learning how people connect with one another, can allow him to
integrate into society despite his physical grotesqueness.
However, this was not meant to be, as the Creature realizes, through his
informal education, that he is severely restricted by his appearance. Ultimately, as
John Bugg notes, the Creature realizes that becoming educated cannot wholly
integrate him into society: “[T]he exact referent of the Creature’s difference is less
important than the basic fact of alterity: as the Creature learns to read and speak, he
also learns that his body will condition the terms of his existence” (659). This fact is
true for many groups that experience oppression in education, such as people of color,
women, and individuals with physical disability. As these groups learn and leave the
blissful ignorance of childhood, they become privy to the ways of the world,
especially regarding how their bodies will determine their movements and actions
within it. The Creature realizes that education, which at first seemed like his salvation,
only confirmed the limits of his existence. No matter how educated he might become,
the Creature will never be able to bridge the gap between himself and society.
Having not been able to socially connect, the Creature is left with three
choices: (1) to keep trying to bridge the gap and potentially face lethal consequences,
(2) to accept his fate and live in total isolation, or (3) to accept his fate but do so
violently. The creature opts for this third choice and decides to take what he wants by
force, resulting in his violently lashing out in revenge as compensation for his
suffering, even if it only worsens his situation. While it cannot be said that the
Creature’s choice was the correct one, the decision speaks to the kinds of actions
certain groups might take in response to immense social pressures. Violence and
crime are often linked to poverty, lack of resources, and low quality of life (Kang 618
21). Whether or not the Creature’s actions or anyone else’s are moral does not change
that these actions stem from suffering and inequality.
In popular culture, it is obvious why the Creature in Mary Shelley’s
Frankenstein is ostracized from society. The combination of the Creature’s unsettling
appearance and the common belief that he is unable to communicate establish the
Creature as a “monster.” However, in the source material, the reasoning behind the
educated Creature’s exclusion from society is less apparent. Some might argue that his
ostracization is supported by the idea that the Creature’s informal and nonformal
education do not provide him with the adequate tools to connect with and be
embraced by humanity. A more thorough analysis shows that the Creature is equal to
Victor Frankenstein intellectually and that the two characters’ educations contrast with
each other in a meaningful way. With the Creature and his creator being equal, the
Creature’s rejection from society suggests that education does not impact social status.
Instead, the ways in which people like the Creature are received by society are
impacted by far larger forces than education, and in the Creature’s case, this larger
force is societal prejudice.