One of the most compelling things about Mary Shelley’s original Frankenstein is that portions of the novel are told from the MONSTER’S point of view. The guiding perspective of the narrative switches among several characters — including both the doctor and his creation — and that switch of focus gives the masterpiece its allure.
Readers are drawn into the monster’s desire to be accepted into human society and, failing that, to convince — by any means necessary — the doctor to make him a mate. The tragic ending of the novel is pretty much inevitable from the start, but it’s still worth reading. The monster and his human creator are locked in a treacherous dance to the death when neither will budge from his position. (Sounds a lot like politics.)
In my opinion, the monster makes his case. He didn’t ask to be “created” and the intense loneliness of his existence is unbearable. While the doctor, supposedly a devoted man of science has suspicious motivations from the start. He is dead set on creating life and subverting every principal of his society and when he succeeds he is overwhelmed with what he’s done. Abandoning his unnatural progeny, he wants to simply walk away. But that’s not a viable option. The MONSTER is not a pet that he can leave by the side of the road. (Not that anyone should leave a pet by the side of the road —ever.)
Most of the movie versions are light on sympathy for the monster. Not, of course, my favorite Mel Brooks movie and the Elsa Lancaster bride movie, but most of the ‘villagers storming the castle’ movies show zero compassion for the monster.
All the more reason to read the original and choose your own side in the monster/creator debate!