Intrepid Reporters Catch 'Snowflake Students' Correctly Surmising the Moral of Frankenstein

Illustration for article titled Intrepid Reporters Catch Snowflake Students Correctly Surmising the Moral of iFrankenstein/i
Screenshot: The Sun

Monsters are bad and that’s just the way that it is, with no exceptions ever.

But according to notorious British tabloid the Sun, sicko lib “snowflake students” in the UK are reading Mary Shelley’s classic 1818 novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus—widely considered one of the first science fiction novels—and concluding that the titular doctor’s grotesque creation, which ended up killing several people, is in fact a “misunderstood” victim! Some are even asking whether Frankenstein’s monster would be afforded rights in a modern society, per the Sun:

But an academic has revealed growing support for the beast in the introduction to a 200th anniversary edition of the book.

Prof Nick Groom, of Exeter University, said: “When I teach the book now, students are very sentimental towards the being. But he is a mass murderer.”

He then asked: “If he’s not human, but he is intelligent and sentient, does he have rights?”


The Sun went on to quote yet another dangerous radical who believes that Frankenstein’s monster deserves some kind of sympathy:

Mary Shelley expert Professor David Punter, of Bristol University, said: “It’s a familiar story isn’t it, someone with a terrible upbringing going on to commit terrible crimes.”

“The monster does deserve sympathy.”

“I don’t believe he would qualify as human and I’m not sure he would qualify under any kind of animal rights regulations either. I think the poor chap would rather fall in between two stools.”


It seems like these ivory tower academics may have latched on to some kind of twisted interpretation of the novel that the true monster of the story is actually the inhumanity of man, and that the senseless prejudice and injustices that Frankenstein’s experiment experienced at the hands of the xenophobic humans he only wanted to befriend (including, most terribly, his creator) directly resulted in him turning violent.

I mean if the monster was intended to be sympathetic wouldn’t Shelley have written him as some kind of tragic figure cursed not necessarily by his innate nature, but the cruelty of the world?


No, clearly he’s just all super gross and stuff, so you know that can’t be what Shelley intended.


Gizmodo has reached out to the Sun’s reporters to see what they think the real moral of Frankenstein is, and will update this article if we hear back.

[The Sun]


"... An upperclassman who had been researching terrorist groups online." - Washington Post

Share This Story

Get our newsletter


The real isue is that most people have not read the book, and assume it’s like the old Universal B/W monster movies. The DeNiro movie was a lot closer to the book, and if you watch that (vs something like Frankenstein Meets Werewolf) Shelly’s intent is clear.

Let’s face it, when someone says “Frankenstein,” one’s mind goes to the horror movies, Halloween costumes, cereal, cartoons, etc. How many folks have actually read the book or seen a movie/theatrical production really based on it? And how many know the pop-culture version?

I must admit, the first time I saw a “true” adaptation, I was really surprised, and thought it an avenr garde new revisioning, so I went and read the book. And the book was NOTHING like the pop culture references I’d grown up with.