Is Frankenstein the name of the monster in Shelley’s iconic Frankenstein? Since many directors have brought Frankenstein to the screen, they often put the monster's head together with the title, so I guess most people who haven't read the book would have that impression. In fact, Frankenstein is the person who created the monster. I think there is another reason for this misunderstanding: Frankenstein did not even give a name to his "experimental results", his creature, and was scared away by its hideous appearance. Although the monster is indubitably grotesque, does the book portray the monster’s true ugliness?
 
With a good heart tainted by evil, it is prejudice that leads the monster down the wrong path.

Since its inception, Frankenstein’s monster had the mentality of a child. It had no knowledge of the world and could be delighted with the simple singing of birds. But as he had more experiences, he began to adopt a more mature mind. While this might seem great, he was exposed to the ugliness in the world when he was attacked by the villagers due to his physical ugliness. Even he, himself, saw his reflection in the water and feared his own appearance.
 
Sadly, before the villagers attacked him, Frankenstein’s monster began to have hope in the beauty of the world, but it was quickly extinguished. For instance, he began to have hope in humanity when he and a blind elderly man began to form a friendship. The man felt the monster had a beautiful soul as he was able to know the monster for who he really was and not what he looked like. Unfortunately, when the villagers came home and saw the monster's horrible and ugly appearance, they began to assault him without saying a word, and he did not even have the opportunity to explain. Since then, he loathed his birth. The world misunderstood him, spit on him, and he eventually set fire to the villagers' houses, which also represents the start of his ugly evil nature taking over.
 
To consider the monster’s evil more deeply, he also had hope in humanity when Dr. Frankenstein, his creator, agrees to create a female mate for him. Although the half-finished product was destroyed, I can't avoid asking: if Frankenstein really created a female mate, what would have been the ending? As far as I’m concerned, the ending would have still been a tragedy. The monster is pitiful, but no longer benevolent. He is ugly, no longer innocent or beautiful. Creating a female mate would not break the monster's plight, because, despite gaining a mate, they would have no connection to the world, only to each other, and would still have to hide in the snowy mountains. The monster cannot change himself, and a female mate cannot be his salvation.
 
Closing the book, I have to admire author Mary Shelley's foresight. Her vision, as with most classic novels, transcends the era. As technology advances, I find myself living in a world that is increasingly beyond control. The Bessemer process laid the foundation for later industrial progress, but guns and tanks made of iron caused countless deaths. The invention of the automobile has greatly facilitated human life, but carbon dioxide emissions have seriously polluted the earth; there are many more examples of this, and when we ask for technology to satisfy ourselves, technology is like the monster that is constantly taking revenge on humanity.
 
The philosophical, technological cognitive questions posed in Frankenstein, for humans to answer today, will only be more ruthless than when the book was written 200 years ago. Because of nearly two hundred years of human history, we constantly create monsters to drive ourselves into a corner. The brutality of two world wars, the steady deterioration of the environment, and the current escalation of nuclear and biological weapons, all raise unavoidable questions about the future fate of humanity.
 
I think the real ugliness portrayed is not the monster at all. Indeed, it is in the human beings.