The Folly Of Injustice In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

1039 Words5 Pages
Imagine a man walking down the street suddenly getting robbed. The man who is pickpocketed will certainly detest such injustice and gain the sympathy of society. On the other hand, the thief will be looked down by society. People judge the thief based only on this incident and brand him as a disgraceful and spiteful member of the community. What the public has failed to realize are the internal strife and emotions that the perpetrator has to bear due to his crime. If he or she were given the choice to steal or to be robbed, a generous person would choose to be the victim rather than the despised doer. Such a thought did not escape from Nietzsche, who regarded this concept as a folly of injustice: “An injustice we have perpetrated is much harder to bear than an injustice perpetrated against us” (Nietzsche). However, does everyone who perpetrates a crime bear much more than if he…show more content…
Though a naturally gentle being, Frankenstein’s creation gradually transforms into a bitter and vengeful existence that murders his creator’s beloved ones. His transformation into a blood lusting and seemingly remorseless murderer is a tragic instance. However, when the story comes to an end, readers learn of the internal conflicts he goes through. As his creator finally passes away, he expresses his immense suffering to Robert Walton, who has promised Frankenstein to destroy his creation. “You hate me, but your abhorrence cannot equal that with which I regard myself… Blasted as thou wert, my agony was still superior to thine, for the bitter sting of remorse will not cease to rankle in my wounds until death shall close them forever” (Shelley 276). His conscience has not diminished; the guilt he has been bearing is so immense that he can no longer endure it, and the only recourse left for him is to end his own
Open Document