Just because you don't think about the effects of what you're doing doesn't mean that they don't exist. Frankenstein's irresponsibility causes a bunch of unnecessary angst. He made the mistake of making the monster to begin with but there were plenty of instances where he could've redeemed himself. He could have 'raised' the monster to understand life and it's rules. He could have built the female monster and allowed them to go off together.

The "destructive nature of his first creation" was merely a result of lack of care. The monster was like a child at first, he needed to be shown what right and wrong really were; without which he wandered around picking up pieces of himself- symbolically, not literally- learning what type of person he was, or wanted to be. He turned out to have a natural attraction for what is considered 'right'. He could've been a great being if only he'd had some guidance.

Victor and the monster are two separate, but complimentary characters. While Victor feels most comfortable in seclusion, the monster continuously seeks out company. The weather associations with both also contrast one another. Victor seems to enjoy the gloomly and dark weather while his monster thrives in light. Looking at this facts, it appears that Frankenstein may have put a major piece of his own humanity into the monster, symbolically of course. The monster exhibits more humane characteristics and greater understanding of the world than him. This understanding that the monster develops very quickly also highlights Victor's childlike behavior.

Ignoring the monster was very reckless and childish of him; just because he was out of sight doesn't mean he should have been out of mind. I think that as the creator it is Frankenstein's responsibility to look after the needs of his monster. He shouldn't have had a problem with fulfilling it's request for a female companion. Social interaction is a necessity for almost all life.

Something that really stuck out about the story The Birthmark is that the lead male had a obsession with perfection, but only outside of himself. Something always went wrong with his experiments, and he didn't finish all his studies. He only sought for perfection in indirect methods, thus not effecting himself.

Something all these stories share is an ever present problem of selfishness. There is always at least one character that cares for their needs first and foremost, with complete disregard for how they affect anyone else. In both The Fall of the House of Usher and The Castle of Otranto, the lead male is consumed by his want of another male heir. The Birthmark is more of a want for perfection in general, but a want nonetheless.

Throughout every piece of Gothic literature that we have read the whole theme of what love is and how we should respond to it has been really disturbing. Starting with our most recent read, The Birthmark, love is seen from two very different prospectives. First it is presented sort of like a challenge. Strive and fight for the best and receive your prize. Then we see it as a brainwashing tool. Love is a means to press your opinions and ideas onto those around you. In The Fall of the House of Usher, love is seen as a means to get what you want. However, as soon as what you want becomes unattainable love no longer has any importance. The Castle of Otranto is the only story that shows a slither of what love is really about through the relationship between the Matilda and Theodore, but even then it was kind of out shined by the warped presentation of love from Manfred to Isabella.

Going along with what you said about Georgiana being an angel, the reason for the blemish being a hand could represent the fact that it was what was 'holding' her in her human body.

This story, The Birthmark, really shines a light on just how pathetic and twisted the marriages of this time period were. Women were so brainwashed and degraded that the simple opinion of this woman's husband tilts her world and sends its spinning out of control. Her whole life Georgiana had been told that she was beautiful and that the small 'blemish' only adds to her beauty, but the moment her husband speaks unfavorable of it she second guesses her entire worth. This shows that females were not intended to have minds or opinions of their own, but to be completely dependent on their male counterparts.

I'm not saying that it's right but the reality of any controversial situation like this is that people are going to do what they want to do. Though yes it is said that some people use the rights given to them for wrong doing but why punish all for the mistakes of few. "Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year." (Gun Owners of America- Control Fact Sheet) This shows that like so many of our other privileges, the majority of the people use this in a very productive manner. Why take whats good away from these people when those set on causing harm we do so regardless, even if it mean finding another media.