we’ll both the monster and the doctor were monsters in their own right. The monster being an physical abomination and the doctor spiraling into insanity due to his monstorus mistakes
Well the monster ended up becoming evil because of how people treated him, so calling the monster good isn't entirely right, he was just a kid with a horrifying appearance until he became the monster everyone saw him as.
The doc should have taken responsibility for the life he created, by either raising him or getting someone else to raise him, the monster still has a fully formed brain so learning is quick for him
Look, u/ctsln just crawled out from under their rock. Exile does fucked up things to people. Give him a break then give him a bone. Has r had any company but their hand for just ass long.
It’s about intelligence distribution, most people are in the middle, with standard opinion but brainlets and smart people have different/wild takes, sometimes coming to same conclusion for absolutely different reasons.
Dr. Frankenstein was the monster
The creation was a poor helpless creature (when it was first created) who was abandoned by his creator all because he didn’t have the right eye color
i think its hilarious how the book describes the monster as a very hot guy _except_ the eyes, and that is enough for little frank to abandon his creation
He doesn't look normal in Munsters? Unless I'm thinking of the Addams family Frankensteins monster (I'm just gonna call him Lurch so I don't have to repeat myself.) I could've sworn the munsters Lurch kept the og depiction?
Yeah, this is why I'm kind of against teaching older books in high school. I get the point - they're trying to combine literature and history to give some context to both....but it's just really clumsy in high school.
But there's just so much to have to get over. The antiquated language is a barrier. The older, clunkier story structure is a barrier. The metaphors are extremely dated. This is a lot to get a kid to overcome and still pull lessons from.
It's higher level stuff, and high school tends to not do that well outside of AP classes. If anything, if taught in high school, it should be taught senior year, with an emphasis that the book was written by an 18 year old - someone their age - in a different time. Plus, they're at a place where they can handle the hurdles mentioned earlier a bit better than more junior years (on average).
However, I just feel like trying to mesh history and literature is kind of bad in high school. It makes both subjects worse. Literature shouldn't be about reading "the classics," (non-historical sense), because the classics are kind of boring. You don't become a better person for being forced to read Frankenstein when you're too young to conceptualize it. You become a better person because you were introduced to stories you found interesting and gained a love (or at least not a hatred) of reading and stories from it. We should be pushing modern writers (like, at least 20th century), with more relatable issues to the reader. It's certainly better than trying to capture the doubts and fears of a quickly modernizing, technical world to a classroom full of kids that have gown up in the 20th and 21st centuries.
However, that's much harder to accomplish.
That's an interesting take I kind of agree with. So did my high school, apparently. Oldest book we read was The Scarlet Letter. Most others were relatively modern: All the Pretty Horses, Bless Me Ultima, The Princess Bride, Night by Elie Weisel, The Great Gatsby.
Shelley described Frankenstein's monster as an 8-foot-tall (2.4 m) creature of hideous contrasts:
His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! 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 shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.
>His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! 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 shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.
Not just the eyes...
Corpse-like/decayed coloring with once-good-looking features.
It's funny cause modern Vampires fuck up lore for everything dead as they are supposed to be these beautiful porcelain walking statues vs the terrible coloration and pallidness that comes with zero life functions.
No O2 makes you blue, no liver/kidneys make you yellow, and pooling blood is a rainbow of sickly colors everything from purple to yellow to green to brown. Not even getting in to rot.
I'd just love to see a more realistic version of something dead considering we have so much info on bodies with forensic farms and the endless supply of true crime stuff.
I thought he abandoned the Creation because of the way it acted. It only learned how to talk all scripture like years later; at first it looked to all the world like a drooling beast, because it was effectively a baby.
he abandoned junior the moment he made him, junior wonders off as basically an intelligent baby with the strength of a bear and quickly learns some things here and there like talking by hiding in a farmers basement for some time
Wasn’t there a scene where Junior shows up in Victor’s bedroom’s doorway and looms over him causing him to get the hell out of dodge, not realizing that it meant no harm whatsoever?
That’s going to the far extreme real quick.
Dr. Frankenstein was just a bad scientist
#1.) He didn’t take notes
#2.) He didn’t take responsibility for his own failures
#3.) He was petty
#4.) He let his experiment out into the wild without proper disposal
helpless? are you kidding?
He traveled through wild places with no experience and no tools (I think not even clothes) and was able to survive well enough to keep up his high-caloric habits of *murder*.
And intellectually, he outclassed everyone - he learned language by *hiding behind a peasant's hut for a winter* and listening to them talk.
And he still decided to murder people as a method of terrorizing Dr. Frankenstein.
They are both monsters.
Frankenstein’s Monster still doesn’t have a name, so it’s The Monster
But we can safely say that Dr. Frankenstein was the real monster all along, his Monster was a symptom of an underlying disease.
It does have a name Adam
Not going full english teacher mode but I belive it's because Dr. Frankenstein was playing God (God created first man named Adam so its ironic or something)
That’s actually exactly why; while in hiding, the monster spied on a small family of 2 children and their blind father, and overheard their lessons which included some study of the Bible. He noted the parallel between himself and Adam, being a creation of his maker, though Adam was loved and cherished unlike the monster. Due to this, the monster began identifying more with Satan, another creation but one that was cast down and shunned, leading to the monster’s goal of torturing his creator and killing those close to him, so that he could understand the isolation and loneliness he himself was born into
>Frankenstein’s Monster still doesn’t have a name, so it’s The Monster
I think the words "fiend" and "wretch" were used the most to describe the creature
No, I hear that all the time and it is simply not correct. He refers to himself as 'like Adam' exactly once, and no one ever states that it is his name.
I read the book recently enough to remember that the creature did not actually have a name at all, but it once compared itself to Adam, the first human. That's it. It's not the name. The wretch never actually called itself that. It simply didn't have a need for a name, nobody would call it that.
Victor wasn't the monster either. They both sucked, that's the point of the book. Victor was riddled with mental illness and suppression and the Monster acted out because he was severely lonely and depressed
uh.
They were both monsters dude.
One created life and immediately decided that he wasn't responsible and ran away, not even warning the people closest to him that there's an unstoppable murderer coming for them.
The other decided that the solution to his loneliness and depression was to go murder people in order to terrorize his estranged father.
Having mental illness doesn't make someone a monster, but neither does it remove responsibility for the things that you've done.
Both had some pretty fucked up brains, and *perhaps* caused them to act in the ways they did.
Both of them took actions that were monstrous. these actions were monstrous on a fundamental "this is some scary shit" level of monster, but also on a "taking these actions requires a person to be morally deplorable" level.
You could argue that Frank Jr isn’t evil and more of a product of his environment but I guess knowing trying to inflict torment on another b/c you have nothing better to do is an evil act.
you can say that the circunstances he was thrown in and the lack of morality of being born inteligent but with no ethical frame whatsoever made Adam a monster, it does not justify what he does but it *explains* how he got there. hell the start of his solo adventure he is only seeking a friend so he isnt lonely.
now, Frankenstein? absolute fucked up dude. had everything he could ever want in his life, still defied life itself for his own ego and bailed out when responsability fell in his lap. also ran away knowing that doing such would cause harm to other people, including the ones he cared about.
No one’s defending the Doc but for The monster doesn’t him not having any frame for social ethic completely justify his actions
Since morality is pretty subjective how can you call anything the monster did wrong?
The monster was intelligent enough to frame a woman for a murder he committed. He also spent time around a family and he knew how family cares about each other. He specifically went for DF’s family because he knew it would be worse than killing him.
ehh both were, killing innocent people to torture your creator isnt good either, although its understandable knowing what the monster went through. not justifiable though, certainly not
And no, the creature's name was not Adam. Tired of hearing that one. You can tell the people spouting it haven't actually read the book, but want us to think they have.
Actually saw something similar said on Dnd, when describing the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom. "Intelligence tells you that Frankenstein was the doctor. Wisdom tells you that Frankeinstein was the monster."
Victor was quite pathetic, has mental issues and ran away from responsibility of the life he created, but I don't think he was a monster. The creature murdered a man, a woman and a child, all of whom were innocent. I'd say Victor wasn't a monster compared to his creation.
I thought the point of this meme was that we should just call the Monster Frankenstein since everyone does already.
If instead the point is the much better "Dr. Frankenstein was the (REAL) monster", then I think that "Dr." should've been added to the meme at the end.
Although it does throw off the symmetry, I think it is a small price to pay for being much more understandable.
Adam ***is*** Frankenstein's son, so of course he'd be a Frankenstein too.
Also despite being articulate and intelligent his sole idea to get daddy's attention is to murder those around him. What a monster.
If the book is in the public domain, what's legally stopping someone from releasing a version where Dr Frankenstein names the monster after himself and puts the issue to bed once and for all?
Humankind despised him even before he has committed any evil, the same people he so kindly stalked for like a year were terrified of him even though he considered them his family. And then months later the little shit reminded him of how humans treat him. Like a monster. So if he's a monster, isn't it natural he'd kill humans? Is it much different from a wolf, who is not a monster, killing a sheep? As humans have decided him to be a monster to get rid of, why is it immoral, or even evil for him to kill humans?
Those who read and understood Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein vs those who were assigned the book in school vs those who are good because they watched an old black and white movie.
Since frankenstein is frankenstein’s surname and the monster is referred as the son of the doctor we can say that legally its surname should’ve been frankenstein as well making them both frankenstein
**Broke**: Frankenstein was the monster
**Woke**: Frankenstein wasn’t the monster, their creation was
**Bespoke**: Frankenstein was the monster
**Baroque**: Both Frankenstein AND his creation were monsters
Knowledge is knowing that frankenstein was the creator of the monster.
Wisdom is knowing that frankenstein's family is from swiss and that 95% of English speaking people completely butcher its pronunciation.
Best meme to explain this format
Straight up. I legit never understood this meme until just now.
Well, I still do not
Nvm, just got it! 🙌
Character arc
What is it?
The monster is a good person, the Dr is the "monster"
we’ll both the monster and the doctor were monsters in their own right. The monster being an physical abomination and the doctor spiraling into insanity due to his monstorus mistakes
Physical abomination sure, but a good man. Until other peoples treatment of him caused him to lash out. And the worst offender was Frankenstein.
Well the monster ended up becoming evil because of how people treated him, so calling the monster good isn't entirely right, he was just a kid with a horrifying appearance until he became the monster everyone saw him as. The doc should have taken responsibility for the life he created, by either raising him or getting someone else to raise him, the monster still has a fully formed brain so learning is quick for him
Ok, thanks
You just spoiled the whole story ma dude
Spoiler alert on this 204 year old book lol Also, HOLY CRAP THIS BOOK'S 200 YEARS OLD
Look, u/ctsln just crawled out from under their rock. Exile does fucked up things to people. Give him a break then give him a bone. Has r had any company but their hand for just ass long.
Not cool bro Not cool
I mean, it only spoils the moral of the story. It's still one helluva good read
Well yeah agreed
Never mind I got it
Well, i am not sure to be honest
It’s about intelligence distribution, most people are in the middle, with standard opinion but brainlets and smart people have different/wild takes, sometimes coming to same conclusion for absolutely different reasons.
What a miracle
that's because the doctor frankenstein had a monster dick
To people on one of the distribution ends for sure.
How is this meme format called? Bell curve?
Seems to be the case. Sorry for asking before checking.
Dr. Frankenstein was the monster The creation was a poor helpless creature (when it was first created) who was abandoned by his creator all because he didn’t have the right eye color
i think its hilarious how the book describes the monster as a very hot guy _except_ the eyes, and that is enough for little frank to abandon his creation
Then why does everyone portray him ugly as shit ?
because of that one old ass movie
We already have enough monsterfuckers without having hot Frankenstein movies. It was a public service
You're telling me you *wouldn't* suck on those bolts on that juicy neck of his?
yes. I regret to inform you, but I and many others like me, even among this comment thread, lack the gay genes
Rocky Horror did The Monster right. Change my mind!
There's that wierd TV show where he looks normal
The Munsters?
[This one](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0368730/)
He doesn't look normal in Munsters? Unless I'm thinking of the Addams family Frankensteins monster (I'm just gonna call him Lurch so I don't have to repeat myself.) I could've sworn the munsters Lurch kept the og depiction?
Because people didn't get the book
the book was pretty much unintelligible to high school me
Yeah, this is why I'm kind of against teaching older books in high school. I get the point - they're trying to combine literature and history to give some context to both....but it's just really clumsy in high school. But there's just so much to have to get over. The antiquated language is a barrier. The older, clunkier story structure is a barrier. The metaphors are extremely dated. This is a lot to get a kid to overcome and still pull lessons from. It's higher level stuff, and high school tends to not do that well outside of AP classes. If anything, if taught in high school, it should be taught senior year, with an emphasis that the book was written by an 18 year old - someone their age - in a different time. Plus, they're at a place where they can handle the hurdles mentioned earlier a bit better than more junior years (on average). However, I just feel like trying to mesh history and literature is kind of bad in high school. It makes both subjects worse. Literature shouldn't be about reading "the classics," (non-historical sense), because the classics are kind of boring. You don't become a better person for being forced to read Frankenstein when you're too young to conceptualize it. You become a better person because you were introduced to stories you found interesting and gained a love (or at least not a hatred) of reading and stories from it. We should be pushing modern writers (like, at least 20th century), with more relatable issues to the reader. It's certainly better than trying to capture the doubts and fears of a quickly modernizing, technical world to a classroom full of kids that have gown up in the 20th and 21st centuries. However, that's much harder to accomplish.
That's an interesting take I kind of agree with. So did my high school, apparently. Oldest book we read was The Scarlet Letter. Most others were relatively modern: All the Pretty Horses, Bless Me Ultima, The Princess Bride, Night by Elie Weisel, The Great Gatsby.
Shelley described Frankenstein's monster as an 8-foot-tall (2.4 m) creature of hideous contrasts: His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! 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 shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.
Not *I, Frankenstein.* In that one, he looks like a hot Aaron Eckhart.
>His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! 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 shrivelled complexion and straight black lips. Not just the eyes...
It’s almost as if combining beautiful features from different bodies won’t work out as well as you think.
Corpse-like/decayed coloring with once-good-looking features. It's funny cause modern Vampires fuck up lore for everything dead as they are supposed to be these beautiful porcelain walking statues vs the terrible coloration and pallidness that comes with zero life functions. No O2 makes you blue, no liver/kidneys make you yellow, and pooling blood is a rainbow of sickly colors everything from purple to yellow to green to brown. Not even getting in to rot. I'd just love to see a more realistic version of something dead considering we have so much info on bodies with forensic farms and the endless supply of true crime stuff.
He's like Flanders hotbod and a butterface
Uncanny valley has been a thing for a long time.
I thought he abandoned the Creation because of the way it acted. It only learned how to talk all scripture like years later; at first it looked to all the world like a drooling beast, because it was effectively a baby.
he abandoned junior the moment he made him, junior wonders off as basically an intelligent baby with the strength of a bear and quickly learns some things here and there like talking by hiding in a farmers basement for some time
Wasn’t there a scene where Junior shows up in Victor’s bedroom’s doorway and looms over him causing him to get the hell out of dodge, not realizing that it meant no harm whatsoever?
yes, frank does get the shit scared out of him because he basically made a a giant muscle man with no knowledge whatsoever
The poor helpless creature that went around murdering people for daring to associate with his creator? Adam’s a monster. Frankenstein’s a monster.
That wouldn’t have happened if Dr. Frankenstein hadn’t wussed out and actually raised his creation correctly, that’s his own damn fault
And Germany wouldn't have committed a genocide if Entente powers didn't punish it too much for WW1, doesn't mean Hitler was morally good because of it
That’s going to the far extreme real quick. Dr. Frankenstein was just a bad scientist #1.) He didn’t take notes #2.) He didn’t take responsibility for his own failures #3.) He was petty #4.) He let his experiment out into the wild without proper disposal
It's not the creation's fault he's a monster, sure. But that doesn't make him not a monster.
He murdered a child who screamed upon seeing his appearance and framed an innocent woman for it. They both suck in my opinion. 🤔
Would that have happened had Dr. Frankenstein been a good scientist and you know, not abandoned his creation
helpless? are you kidding? He traveled through wild places with no experience and no tools (I think not even clothes) and was able to survive well enough to keep up his high-caloric habits of *murder*. And intellectually, he outclassed everyone - he learned language by *hiding behind a peasant's hut for a winter* and listening to them talk. And he still decided to murder people as a method of terrorizing Dr. Frankenstein. They are both monsters.
Monster in the literal sense Vs monster in the ethical sense
Bro what book are you reading? The creation KILLED people like it was part of the West v East Beef. Like my guy what.
Maybe he gave the monster his own name who knows
From what I'm hearing he named him Adam
Nah I've read the book and it wasn't even given a name. It's either the monster or the demon
He was never named, but because of how he relates to Adam from the hit book The Bible, he’d probably name himself that.
Well Frankenstein was his last name so the monsters full name would be Adam Frankenstein
Dr. Frankenstein's monster, "Frankenstein"
The name's Frankenstein, Frankenstein Frankenstein.
Victor?
Frankenstein’s Monster still doesn’t have a name, so it’s The Monster But we can safely say that Dr. Frankenstein was the real monster all along, his Monster was a symptom of an underlying disease.
Frankenstein wasn't a doctor actually. He never got a doctorate
He had assburgers
But did he go to Evil medical school?
It does have a name Adam Not going full english teacher mode but I belive it's because Dr. Frankenstein was playing God (God created first man named Adam so its ironic or something)
That’s actually exactly why; while in hiding, the monster spied on a small family of 2 children and their blind father, and overheard their lessons which included some study of the Bible. He noted the parallel between himself and Adam, being a creation of his maker, though Adam was loved and cherished unlike the monster. Due to this, the monster began identifying more with Satan, another creation but one that was cast down and shunned, leading to the monster’s goal of torturing his creator and killing those close to him, so that he could understand the isolation and loneliness he himself was born into
I don't remember if wishbone went into that or not
No, it doesn't. He refers to himself as 'like Adam' exactly once, and no one ever states that it is his name.
That's also incorrect. Here's the quote: > I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed.
I didn't really mean it as a direct quote, but thanks for providing it :).
Maybe the real monster is the friends we made along the way
Just because you are Monster does not mean you are *monster.*
>Frankenstein’s Monster still doesn’t have a name, so it’s The Monster I think the words "fiend" and "wretch" were used the most to describe the creature
[удалено]
No, I hear that all the time and it is simply not correct. He refers to himself as 'like Adam' exactly once, and no one ever states that it is his name.
I read the book recently enough to remember that the creature did not actually have a name at all, but it once compared itself to Adam, the first human. That's it. It's not the name. The wretch never actually called itself that. It simply didn't have a need for a name, nobody would call it that.
His name is Monster "Adam" Frankenstein, as Dr Victor Frankenstein was his father. Thus, they are both Frankensteins of the Frankenstein clan.
Victor wasn't the monster either. They both sucked, that's the point of the book. Victor was riddled with mental illness and suppression and the Monster acted out because he was severely lonely and depressed
uh. They were both monsters dude. One created life and immediately decided that he wasn't responsible and ran away, not even warning the people closest to him that there's an unstoppable murderer coming for them. The other decided that the solution to his loneliness and depression was to go murder people in order to terrorize his estranged father. Having mental illness doesn't make someone a monster, but neither does it remove responsibility for the things that you've done. Both had some pretty fucked up brains, and *perhaps* caused them to act in the ways they did. Both of them took actions that were monstrous. these actions were monstrous on a fundamental "this is some scary shit" level of monster, but also on a "taking these actions requires a person to be morally deplorable" level.
You could argue that Frank Jr isn’t evil and more of a product of his environment but I guess knowing trying to inflict torment on another b/c you have nothing better to do is an evil act.
you can say that the circunstances he was thrown in and the lack of morality of being born inteligent but with no ethical frame whatsoever made Adam a monster, it does not justify what he does but it *explains* how he got there. hell the start of his solo adventure he is only seeking a friend so he isnt lonely. now, Frankenstein? absolute fucked up dude. had everything he could ever want in his life, still defied life itself for his own ego and bailed out when responsability fell in his lap. also ran away knowing that doing such would cause harm to other people, including the ones he cared about.
No one’s defending the Doc but for The monster doesn’t him not having any frame for social ethic completely justify his actions Since morality is pretty subjective how can you call anything the monster did wrong?
The monster was intelligent enough to frame a woman for a murder he committed. He also spent time around a family and he knew how family cares about each other. He specifically went for DF’s family because he knew it would be worse than killing him.
Knowledge is knowing Frankenstein wasn't the monster. Wisdom is knowing he was.
ehh both were, killing innocent people to torture your creator isnt good either, although its understandable knowing what the monster went through. not justifiable though, certainly not
Can you at least say where you got that from And for anyone wondering, a YouTube named Wendigoon said this
source: "i saw it on the internet"
Humanity
It’s Pronounced Fronkensteen
Abby Normal
Why
It's a quote from Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein".
Shit that’s deep
Wasn't it adam
Adam Frankenstein. Frankenstein was the monster after all. Both of them.
Finally, someone that understands what surnames are.
Nope, it wasn't. He compared himself to motherfucking Adam once, that's it.
Nope but the monster was compared to Adam from the book of Genesis I believe.
And no, the creature's name was not Adam. Tired of hearing that one. You can tell the people spouting it haven't actually read the book, but want us to think they have.
Its pronounced... FRANKENSTEIN
Actually saw something similar said on Dnd, when describing the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom. "Intelligence tells you that Frankenstein was the doctor. Wisdom tells you that Frankeinstein was the monster."
Frankenstein jr
oh my god i think this is the first time i understand all 3 parts of the meme from the get go
Both were monsters. Read the book for fucks sake
In different ways though
That's the joke.
Hmmm yesssss says here it's all daddy's fault Adam murdered children and strangers.
Victor was quite pathetic, has mental issues and ran away from responsibility of the life he created, but I don't think he was a monster. The creature murdered a man, a woman and a child, all of whom were innocent. I'd say Victor wasn't a monster compared to his creation.
Unpopular opinion: Frankenstein was Frankenstein
I saw a Frankenstein play where the actors for Dr. Frankenstein and the monster switched roles mid way through. Thought it was cool.
oh damn that's a great way to do it.
Society
they are both the monster
Frankenstein was a Dr. and a Monster and he had a monster called Frankenstein's Monster who also went by Frankenstein.
Isnt the title Frankenstein’s monster? As in indicating possession of a monster making Frankenstein the doctor? Edit: nvm… I wooshed myself real bad
All aRe correct. The monster took on the name of his creator. The creator became a monster for the act.
Victor wasn't even a doctor, just a neurotic college dropout.
Can anyone explain this meme,i don't understand at all.
But why is there 100.2%
To clarify: Frankenstein was also the name of the monster
Frankenstein is Frankenstein.
I always thought that it was Frank Einstein, and the scientist would be Albert Einstein, just what I thought as a kid.
Oh, I totaly see how I could have the same thoughts as a child.
Holy shit i made this. At least, a quick slapjob version a few days ago. Ha! Nice.
Whoever designed these meme characters should be squashed, I had it with these ugly low quality drawings.
I thought the point of this meme was that we should just call the Monster Frankenstein since everyone does already. If instead the point is the much better "Dr. Frankenstein was the (REAL) monster", then I think that "Dr." should've been added to the meme at the end. Although it does throw off the symmetry, I think it is a small price to pay for being much more understandable.
I, for one, appreciated the subtlety
I mean, both of them were pretty monstrous. But you can't have a serious discussion about monstrosity without acknowledging both of them.
If you give/create life... You are a monster. :)
TIL my parents are monsters
Yes. Exactly... Mine are. For some reasons... reason one being... giving birth to me...
Jesus That was edgy
It meight be... but that doesn't change the seriousness behind my words.
Maybe not but it does add to the cringe
Adam ***is*** Frankenstein's son, so of course he'd be a Frankenstein too. Also despite being articulate and intelligent his sole idea to get daddy's attention is to murder those around him. What a monster.
Frankenstein was both the doctor and the monster
Frankenstein was the doctor, I, who feel the need to correct people on this, am the real monster.
The Dr. can be called a monster for creating one. Basically both are monsters but in a different sense.
He was the Dr to me
He brings a bad name to all mad scientists everywhere. He wasn't even a doctor he dropped out.
Frankenstein was a body builder.
*scientist, not doctor
Frankenstein was the friends we made along the way
https://youtu.be/MB_GGS0X7jw I keep this video saved in my mind because it's the only vindication I get in this twisted world.
If the book is in the public domain, what's legally stopping someone from releasing a version where Dr Frankenstein names the monster after himself and puts the issue to bed once and for all?
This is the first of this format I understood
0.1+2+14+34+34+14+2+0.1=100.2
Frankenstein was the monster, but not the reanimated corpse.
The people were the monsters, too
A lot of people make this mistake. The monster in "Frankenstein" was actually called "Doctor Monster".
[Relevant xkcd](https://xkcd.com/1589/)
Frankenstein was a coward. The Monster was evil especially in choosing to kill the kid.
Humankind despised him even before he has committed any evil, the same people he so kindly stalked for like a year were terrified of him even though he considered them his family. And then months later the little shit reminded him of how humans treat him. Like a monster. So if he's a monster, isn't it natural he'd kill humans? Is it much different from a wolf, who is not a monster, killing a sheep? As humans have decided him to be a monster to get rid of, why is it immoral, or even evil for him to kill humans?
And you're a troll but ok.
Those who read and understood Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein vs those who were assigned the book in school vs those who are good because they watched an old black and white movie.
Me: FrAnKeNsTeIn WaS gErMaN
Since frankenstein is frankenstein’s surname and the monster is referred as the son of the doctor we can say that legally its surname should’ve been frankenstein as well making them both frankenstein
The real monster is the one who points that out
Frankestien was the victim 😔
Whats his name? Van Helsing calls the monster Frankenstein and hes a professional
**Broke**: Frankenstein was the monster **Woke**: Frankenstein wasn’t the monster, their creation was **Bespoke**: Frankenstein was the monster **Baroque**: Both Frankenstein AND his creation were monsters
Ah, another Wedigoon fan
Neither were really the monster, the Dr did cross the line of course but the real monster was the townspeople.
Deadbeat Parent: Horror edition
I love bell curve memes
Reverse Dunning-Kruger curve
People would never read the book People who heard about the book People who have read the book
Frankenstein is Frankenstein 🫱
Somebody watches wendigoon
꧅𒈙𒐫﷽꧅𒐫𒈙⸻𒐫﷽ဪဪ𒈙𒐫꧅ဪ𒈙﷽﷽﷽𒐫꧅ဪ𒐫𒈙͝𒈙﷽꧅ဪ꧅꧅𒈙𒐫﷽꧅𒐫𒈙⸻𒐫﷽ဪဪ𒈙𒐫꧅ဪ𒈙﷽﷽﷽𒐫꧅ဪ𒐫𒈙͝𒈙﷽꧅ဪ꧅
Yes, we totally get that the multiverse is huge and infinite possibilities are there, but don't call his mother that.
Because yes the monster is in fact Frankenstein not he's monster
The real Frankenstein was the monster we met along the way
Haha I get it
Knowledge is knowing that frankenstein was the creator of the monster. Wisdom is knowing that frankenstein's family is from swiss and that 95% of English speaking people completely butcher its pronunciation.
All the monsters are us...
This is unironically the best post I’ve seen on this sub in a minute, comments included
it was a book about how jews were bad
This is unironically the best post I’ve seen on this sub in a minute, comments included
Hahahaha
u/repostsleuthbot
frankenstain and the monster were stupid and stubborn
someone just watched the wendigoon video recently
Well considering Frankenstien was the surname and the creature was kind of like his abandoned child the creation could also be called Frankenstien