Why We're Still Reading Frankenstein 200 Years Later

A kid's drawing of what appears to be a sad Frankenstein

One of the most widely discussed ideas in Frankenstein remains the redefinition of monstrosity. Mary Shelley tears down the assumption that monsters are born rather than

made, forcing readers to realize that many ideologies of social rejection, neglect, and fear manufacture violence. The creature's body may be grotesque, but his moral corruption is something that was learned.

From the moment of his creation, this 'creature' is denied any fundamental human rights or recognition. Victor Frankenstein is delighted in this revolution of being about to make a creature out of spare limbs to stitch it back together. But he is also horrified, abandoning him before he has a chance to learn language or commit a single act of harm. This rejection becomes a reaccoring process that creates a pattern; the creature is treated like a monster long before he actually behaves like one. Shelley is suggesting that monstrosity is not a biological condition but a social idea imposed on those who fail to meet ideal standards of beauty, normalcy, or usefulness.

As the novel progresses, the creature repeatedly demonstrates the capacity for and morals of empathy as he learns language from the De Lacey family and performs small acts of kindness. These moments show the differences between the creator and creation. The creature's desire is simple: to belong, to be loved, to be seen as human. When his desires are denied again and again, the intense sorrow that he feels turns into rage. Shelley suggests that the creature's violence emerges not from inherent evil, but as a final way of asserting any remnant of control in a world that denies him the right.

Shelly's treatment of monstrosity also exposes society's moral furies. Characters are judged strictly by their appearance, suggesting that society judges based on physical difference and, in turn, justifies its cruelty. Frankenstein was, presumably, supposed to be born with some level of intelligence, which in turn leads to these ideas that he is incapable of feelings and ideas. Between historical and modern texts, particular groups of people marginalize individuals based on race, disability, class, or perceived otherness. The novel asks an uncomfortable question: if society is responsible for creating the conditions that lead to his suffering, who is truly the monster? The outcast or those who cast him out? Victor himself starts to mirror the creature he despised, giving life. His secrecy, obsession, and emotional detachment isolate him from humanity, blurring the line between man and monster. Shelley uses this parallel to show how the being assembled from corpses demonstrates its emotional depth, while the living man gradually loses his moral responsibilities. In this way, Frankenstein deestabilizes the traditional gothic ideologies, suggestioing that the idea of 'monsters' is defined by action rather than form.

The recent film adaptations, including the new Netflix Frankenstein, show how the novel's enduring argument is visually centered on the creature's emotional interiority rather than presenting him as a simple figure of horror. The film shows his isolation, vulnerability, and longing for love and reconqition, allowing viewers to live alongside him. The moments of lingering silence, observation, and failed connections convey Shelley's intent to reveal the true horror not in the creature but in humanity's morals.

At the same time, the film shows how Victor Frankenstein's role is a cautionary figure, portraying how he finds this project to be good to accomplish and not connecting his morals to the well-being of his creation. He has a fixation on the creature, technology, and scientific power while forgetting the ethical responsibilities of his ideas. In this way, the adaptation does not modernize Frankenstein by changing the message but showing how Shelley's warnings align with contemporary fears about the creators who abandon their creations after they can say the science works.

Ultimately, Shelley's novel persists 200 years later becuase it refuses to let readers locate monstrosity safely outside themselves. The creature's suffering reflects a common fear of abandonment, judgment, and rejection, making him very disturbingly relatable. Shelley asks readers to sympathize with this 'monster,' to challenge the ideology that fear can so readily override morals and that neglect can become cruelty.

Even after so many years, these ideas and questions remain relevant and urgent. In a world still grappling with dehumanization, Shelley's monster reminds us that the most terrifying creations are not unnatural beings but society's unwillingness to take responsibility for its morals and actions, placed upon other animals and human beings.

To stand out is to be noticed, no matter how uncomfortable it is.