Re: the good monster

I read Frankenstein for the first time a couple months ago. I don't know why I waited so long to read it, because I knew I'd wanted to for years but I finally found a ragged paperback copy that literally fell apart in my hands as I read it, which seemed somehow appropriate given its subject. What really astounds me about it is that Mary Shelley began working on it at 17, which is still below the age of consent in the US, though barely. I think the novel wasn't published until she was 19, but she was still a teen. And it's one of the great literary classics of the world and a notable precursor of the sci-fi genre.

Yes, I certainly relate to Frankenstein's monster. I see a lot of him in this community. He starts out with the greatest of intentions but winds up fulfilling his monstrous role, becoming embittered and angry in the end, despising himself and the world of man: a model example of how labeling can lead to self-fulfilling prophecy. While the novel is ostensibly meant as a warning against hubris and playing God, what I took away from it was the effects of the negative treatment of the "monster" which is the real tragedy of the novel.

Earlier examples: I think you're overlooking a wealth of tragic monsters in mythology, particularly Greek mythology. Many of the monsters were transformed into their monstrous state because of circumstances beyond their control (e.g. Scylla being the object of Glaucus's affections made Circe jealous, and in revenge she transformed Scylla into a monster.) Though I don't suppose you can really she was a good monster, just a tragic one. Frankenstein though may be the first example (and certainly it's the finest example) of a monster which achieves redemption by the end.