Why Frankenstein’s Monster Was Doomed From the Start
Two centuries later, Victor Frankenstein’s hubris remains the ultimate tech failure story.
Mary Shelley’s 1818 classic, Frankenstein, is often misremembered as a simple horror story. It is, in fact, a profound psychological study of creator’s guilt and the consequences of abandoning responsibility. As we approach the 200th anniversary of the novel, the narrative of the “mad scientist” offers a timeless lesson on the ethics of creation, whether in a lab or the digital world.
Victor Frankenstein’s greatest error wasn’t reanimating dead tissue; it was his immediate rejection of his creation. Upon seeing his experiment breathe, Victor flees, struck not by horror at the creature’s violence (which hadn’t happened yet), but by its aesthetic repulsion. This rejection triggers the creature’s descent into violence. Shelley illustrates that monstrosity is rarely innate; it is forged through isolation and lack of nurture.
The creature itself is initially benevolent. It observes the De Lacey family, learning language, emotion, and the concept of love. It is only when the world—and its own creator—spurns it that rage takes root. This mirrors modern psychology: empathy is a learned behavior, and without it, even the most powerful beings become destructive.
Victor’s failure serves as a cautionary tale for modern innovators. In the rush to build artificial intelligence or genetic modifications, do we consider the “life” we create? Does it have rights? Does it need guidance? Victor built a “modern Prometheus,” stealing fire from the gods without the wisdom to wield it. He created life but refused to nurture it.
Ultimately, the monster was not the abomination; Victor’s neglect was. Shelley teaches us that creation demands connection. We cannot birth the future and then desert it. True innovation requires not just technical brilliance, but the emotional maturity to care for what we bring into the world.
No Comments