They have been taught that by their woke teachers around the world for more than a century, imagine that!
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025
806 points (98.9% liked)
Facepalm
3412 readers
12 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Breaking news: in act of gross defiance, student reads book
I think that defines these comments nicely if a bit cheekily
You can be a victim and still be a monster.
Was it cruel for Frankenstein to bring this tortured being into life? Yes.
Is the creature a victim then? Yes.
Does the creature purposefully harm and kill others (and also try to force Frankenstein into making another tortured being because he wants her to be ugly and face the same torment as him so she’ll have to be with him; showing that he is just as if not more willing to commit the same horror as the Dr. just to feel slightly less alone)? Yes.
Does that make him a monster? Yes.
I mean seriously guys he’s still a fucking monster.
The doctor crossed a line and did something monstrous, but he didn’t know how bad it would be. The creature, however, knows exactly how bad it is, and still wants to do commit the sin again because—by incel-esque logic—this new cursed being will have to love him. If you’re willing to knowingly subject another person to indefinite torture just to feel slightly better yourself, you might be a monster.
Serial killers often had bad childhoods, but that doesn’t excuse their monstrous actions. Frankenstein’s creature had a rough life, but he’s still a monster.
If you’re willing to knowingly subject another person to indefinite torture just to feel slightly better yourself, you might be a monster.
sounds like a lot of parents who choose to bring humans into this world to me, but no one calls them monsters
no one calls them monsters
I think that's a bit unfair. Frankenstein had no sympathy for his creation whatsoever, he ran away after creation and when he first met him he called him monster and wouldn't listen to his story. The creature had to watch humans from afar and to learn to live, being secluded in a hut for at least a year.
He wanted to bring joy to the family which he called protectors, he helped them when they couldn't see them and was constantly afraid of being discovered. It took him so much courage to confront the family for which he gained affection only to be attacked and they fled quickly after.
In his final speech of the book, his sentiment is basically that. All his life he wanted to converse with other humans and be included in society, but he was not allowed, because everyone called him a monster and screamed at his appearance.
Of course murdering other people was the wrong approach to this situation, but he was equipped with weapons and used them when his emotions were too strong for rationale.
Fair, it’s also been a really long time since I read the book, so perhaps my opinion has become overly biased from just having this argument over and over again and is no longer a true assessment of the source material
It strikes me that Frankenstein, as a work of literature does try to teach a moral lesson.
To me, it feels wrongheaded to take the lesson "Hey, maybe if you're a being born of ultimate neglect, maybe don't do any vengeful murders" from this work.
"If you're going to make a person, which is a thing people do all the time, it is your responsibility to not neglect or abuse them" is probably closer to the truth.
Goddammit! For all those still struggling to understand: Frankenstein's monster didn't create himself. Dr. Frankenstein did. The monster didn't ask to be created and while its' sheer existence was a "crime against nature" the creature itself was innocent. So it logically was a victim of Frankenstein's Faustian ambitions. This simple fact -and its' classic predecessors- of course remain completely ignored by The Sun and its' braindead readers.
knowledge is knowing Frankenstein is the doctor, wisdom is knowing Frankenstein is the monster
Folks who have heard about the book know that Frankestein was the monster.
Folks who have read the book know that Frankestein created the monster.
Folks who understand the book know that Frankenstein was the real monster.
These damn college educated liberals and their basic reading comprehension
What's funny about this? He WAS a victim. He was the creation of pride and hubris. Only shallow judgement made him a "monster"
Monsters are often created from pride and hubris not their own.
Shelley was woke as fuck. Daughter of two woke ass motherfuckers and marries Lord Poet Snokeflake.
Snokeflake
Bunch of speculation as to the headline being serious. We can read the article instead of guessing.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5732932/snowflake-students-dub-frakenstein-misunderstood-victim/
Yes. The answer to whether or not they're serious was "Yes".
This has to be a joke... Like why.... NOOOOO. help me please
I was still confused. "Surely this is tongue-in-cheek British humor I'm not understanding?"
FLAKENSTEINS
I'm still guessing.
On one hand, Frankenstein's monster was a victim, but on the other, he was also a giant piece of shit.
Things are almost always more than one thing.
Engaging with the slop by making a post about it is also succumbing to the clickbait, unfortunately.
The sun is just another garbage tabloid that gets plastered on the internet.
Remember, those people don't read. If they can read at all.
So far, there have been no comments on the parallels between Frankenstein and his creature and the Christian god and theirs. I think many people also assume the word creature has a negative connotation, but I would not be surprised if that stemmed from the effect this book had on society, and its use was mostly literal.
the sun makes the new york post look good, and that's an insult
And then there's this dude...
