I believe that the reader's attitude towards the monster is meant to change throughout the story. At first, the monster displays his inherent gentle nature. He truly longs for the affection and love of humanity. At that point, the reader is meant to sympathize with him, and we cheer him on, hoping that he will gain acceptance of humanity. He deserves it.

However, specifically looking at this section, I think that our attitude is meant to shift away from that sympathy we felt earlier into horror at what Frankenstein's creation has become. His true nature made us sympathize with him, but his nurture has made him into something loathsome. This can be summed up when the monster decides: "if I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear" and goes about maliciously murdering the innocent Clerval and Elizabeth. These murders are not in passion. They are calculated to bring suffering to Frankenstein and mankind. At this point, this murderer doesn't deserve our sympathy anymore. He needs to be destroyed.

I think that the monster deserves some sympathy. As evidenced from our last debate, he has definitely earned ours. When the monster says: "I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind?" the Reader cannot help but feel sorry for him. How many of us would be able to stand it if, seeking only affection and love, we were "shunned and hated" by all we approached? The monster says "If any being felt emotions of benevolence towards me, I should return them an hundred and an hundred fold; for that one creature's sake, I would make peace with the whole kind!" He only wants something -- anything -- to accept his hideousness and love him. We can see that his true nature is gentle and kind. He gets his hope built up when Frankenstein promises to make him a mate, but then when he destroys the half-formed woman, I think it truly drives the monster completely insane. Can a reasoning being endure that much stress and hardship? Many have gone crazy from much less.

"Shall each man," cried he, "find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone? I had feelings of affection, and they were requited by detestation and scorn." This is a case where nurture has changed someone into something else. Does Frankenstein really deserve to be happy while the monster "grovel[s] in the intensity of [his] wretchedness?" I think that's what makes him such a great monster; he's relatable -- we can understand why he does what he does.

I don't necessarily think that the monster is morally inferior to Frankenstein who, we must remember, creates the monster just because he wants "a new species to bless him as its creator and source." (32) and then curses and abandons his creation. He is contemptible. The monster on the other hand demonstrates true morality and compassion in its early innocence when he hopes “it might be in [his] power to restore happiness to these deserving people (the De Laceys)” (81). This naturally good being just wants to be "known and loved" (94). When this love and affection is vehemently denied him again and again by everyone he meets, it drives him mad, and we see the true monster emerge, the one that kills children and crushes hopes and dreams and haunts your nightmares. It's a being fallen from morality into depravity (Woohoo Paradise Lost). But yes, he is a monster. He just wasn't always that way.

Although it is clear from the text evidence you present that the Frankenstein's creation is of a naturally gentle and kind disposition, I must disagree with your assertion that he is not a monster. It's true, he innocently seeks "love and friendship" from the De Lacey family. He does hope that “it might be in [his] power to restore happiness to these deserving people” (81). But after their rejection of him "hatred and revenge" fill his bosom (99) and when he kills a child and claps his hands in "hellish triumph" (102) one cannot possibly think of him but as a monster. Maybe he wasn't born a monster, but he has been made into one by humanity's rejection of him.

I just realized that I didn't say this. I think Victor Frankenstein is the non-monster AND the protagonist. Although Chapters 10-12 focus on what's going on with the monster, overall Victor is the one who we follow for pretty much the whole book and we only "zoom in" on the monster from page 71 to 105. Is this really enough to dub the monster the protagonist or main character when the focus is almost entirely on Victor the rest of the time?

Frankenstein's creation is clearly the monster, and Frankenstein is just a scared little sissy who thought he could play God and create life. That blew up in his face, and this novel is about him dealing with his mistake. Even the monster admits that he is a monster "I became fully convinced that I was in reality the monster that I am (80)." True, ordinary people can do monstrous things, but Frankenstein messed up one time. The rest of the time he is just a normal person. Yes, he is a weak person. Yes, what he did was wrong. But he has more than paid for it in my opinion. Just like Prometheus had to deal with an eternity of liver-torture for just giving man one little fire, Frankenstein is being tortured by having EVERYONE he loves and cares about tormented and killed. And guess who's doing it? That's right. The REAL monster. Although he certainly has feelings, and was not always bad, he has been made into what could only be called a monster, both in looks (he blows Victor away in that department) and in the monstrosity of what his actions (he kills a kid AND maliciously plans it so an innocent girl will get blamed. That's truly evil.) Just think about it this way. Which one would you rather find in your closet?

Maybe Shelley could even be contrasting God and Frankenstein as creators.

These chapters could be revealing Shelley's attitude towards the sciences and the arts. Victor's devotion to science segregates him from his college community. He spends all his time dabbling "among the unhallowed damps of the grave or torturing the living animal to animate the lifeless clay" instead of making new friendships and sustaining the ones he already has (33). His "human nature turn[s] with loathing" from what he is doing (33). In this way Shelley criticizes the scientific profession for turning its back on what is right and what a man should do. Henry on the other hand is a man of the arts and wants to learn languages. He wants to communicate with others and connect with them, unlike Frankenstein. By setting each man as a representative of the two disciplines, it is clear that Shelley thought the humanities was a more "noble" undertaking.

Chapters 5 and 6 reveal new dimensions of the characters of Frankenstein and Clerval. Before this point, we see the pair as children, and it is already apparent that their personalities are presented in contrast.

Frankenstein's "passions [were] vehement" and he always was driven to learn "the secrets of heaven and earth" and the "physical secrets of the world" whereas "Clerval occupied himself ... with the moral relations of things". He is described as "perfectly humane .. thoughtful in his generosity," someone who balanced his "passion for adventurous exploit" with "kindness and tenderness". (19-20)

Although both are described as "passionate" about what interests them, Clerval and Frankenstein differ in how they deal with their passions. I think that this contrast in their personalities is a crux in one of the themes in this book: destructive passion. While Clerval checks his passion for learning to nurse Victor when he is struck with fever for several months instead of going to school, Victor lets his passion to "bestow animation on lifeless matter" (32) completely consume his life, allowing his "cheek to grow pale with study and [his] person to become emaciated with confinement". (32)

In this way, Henry fulfills the role of a foil to Victor -- his contrasting generosity and patience illuminates just how wrong and destructive Victor's unchecked passion is.