Is Frankenstein's Monster Human?: A Psychological Look into the Humanity of the Creature Based on His Language

It has often been argued that the definition of a monster is something inhuman, something or someone who has no regard for life and nature and that which is good. Many times in literature or movies, the word monster is used to refer to men how have done horrible things: rape, murder, mass genocide. The weight that this word carries is many times undermined by things such as Halloween costumes or children’s cartoon characters. However, the fact still remains that a true monster is evil, inhumane, and lacks remorse or caring for things that a normal, emotional human being should care for. The term monster lacks what many believe to be the necessary requirements someone needs to be considered human. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, there is such a being that many times was called a creature because he lacked the physical characteristics necessary to be recognized by those around him as a human being. This is something that cannot be disputed, as he is described in the book being quite hideous. “His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set, his shriveled complexion and straight black lips” (60). Clearly the creation was far from physically beautiful, as Frankenstein had originally intended for him to be. However, does that mean that he should not be considered as a human inside? There is one undeniable fact above all that makes the monster human, and the question to be answered is not whether or not he is humane. Before this question of the monster’s humanity can be answered, let us first look at what it meant in the early 1800’s to be considered human, a functioning member of society.
The key point to examine here is that the monster’s humanity is defined by his ability to learn and use language. In Henry Kames’s Sketches of the History of Man, Kames claims that language is one way of determining a man’s station in life, and that the “manners of a particular people may be gathered from their language,” even to the point of individual words. The monster, as his character progresses through the novel, clearly becomes more likeable, not to mention understandable, as he learns to communicate with words. It is easy to see that despite his horrid outward appearance, he is really a loving and loveable individual, at least at first. His personality is one that cares for others and longs for acceptance and a family. This is evident later in the novel in his first conversations with Victor, and in his first (and last) conversation with the Old DeLacey. Upon his initial separation from Victor Frankenstein, the monster had not learned any language. It was through his watching and listening to the DeLaceys that he learned to speak French, the language of the area. Then he taught himself to read through the discovery of three books, one each by Milton, Goethe, and Plutarch. Each of these three books exposed him to a different aspect of human life, and enabled him to gain an even better grasp on language than he already had. As a side note, the language that the monster learned to speak was French. Kames had something to say about the French language specifically in his book, saying that it is a language in which every man is “…politely submissive to those above him; and this tone forms the character of the language in general, so as even to regulate the tone of the few who have occasion to speak with authority.” Even when the monster is speaking in an authoritative manner to Frankenstein (who, while he [Frankenstein] was above him at one point, quickly became even to the monster in terms of rhetorical banter), he remains well spoken and seems to stay calm in demeanor. This alone should be enough to suggest that the monster is indeed human. However, there are other scholars with far more clout that I would begin to claim who have thought the same.
The first critique by Percy Shelley of his wife’s work suggests that the novel presents the moral of “Treat a person ill, and he will become wicked.” This is a theme that is very prevalent throughout the entirety of the book, and one that supports the idea that the monster is indeed a human who started out as inherently good, and eventually was forced to turn to his wicked ways as a direct result of society’s far less than satisfactory treatment of him. More specifically, the blatant rejection he faced at the hands of his own creator led the monster to become vengeful, and display that vengeance through the murder of those closest to Victor. These actions were described by Shelley as “irresistible obligations” imposed upon him by the poor treatment to which he was subjected. This certainly suggests that the monster, though he could not be considered anything near humane at this point, still maintained his sense of humanity. He was able to intelligently and succinctly describe to Frankenstein not only his own personal desires, but the consequences of those desires not being sated. This is an ability that surely suggests the humanity of the monster is very, very real.
In his essay entitled “Disruptive affects: shame, disgust, and sympathy in Frankenstein,” James Hatch explores the presence of said concepts in the novel, and how the relate to the development of the monster. In his introduction, the author claims that “…the outside of the creature – ugly and disgusting – is judged by the people he meets to be his inside (which in fact is sensitive and benevolent, and this ideally human and humane)…” Now while I don’t claim to support the notion that the monster is in any way still humane at the end of the story (if you can defend the notion that the story ends), his humanity is more apparent than ever through his deep sorrow, grief, and regret upon Victor’s death, illustrated by his own desire to die. The monster was inherently human because he was created as such by Victor. Victor simply neglected to train his creation up in the ways of Man, and therefore the creature had to learn such things on his own. This in no way should detract from the inherent humanity of the monster.
Lastly, let me not suggest that the language of the monster in any way defines his humanity. Instead, the language of the monster, and his usage of it, allows him to prove his own humanity to the reader through his use of eloquent prose to express his very human desires and emotions. His use of language was not meant to separate him from the other creatures of the forest in which he sequestered himself; it was meant to give him a means through which he could define himself as a man amongst a world who did not think him so. On a satiric note, Jane Wagner once said “I personally believe that we developed language because of our deep inner need to complain.” Though this quote is tongue-in-cheek, it describes well what the monster needed language to do: Complain that he was neither being accepted nor treated as the man that he truly was.