Let's talk about that scene in Frankenstein that still gives me chills. You know the one – where the creature grabs little William Frankenstein near Plainpalais. I remember reading it for the first time in college and just sitting there stunned. Why would this intelligent being attack an innocent kid? Was it pure evil? A calculated move? Honestly, I used to skip over this part because it felt too brutal. But then I taught a high school lit class and had to really dig into it. Changed my whole perspective.
The Build-Up: What Happened Before the Attack
You've gotta understand what led to this moment. The creature had been through hell – rejected by Victor, shot by a terrified farmer, living in a shed for months watching the De Lacey family. His attempt to connect with them ended in violence. He was utterly alone. When he saw William playing near Geneva, something snapped.
Think about it: William was wearing fancy clothes with the family crest. The creature later tells Victor: "I grasped his throat to silence him, and in a moment he lay dead at my feet". That moment wasn't random. He knew exactly whose brother this was. After all, Victor's journal had fallen from his coat during their first confrontation.
The Creature's Psychological State That Morning
| Emotional Trigger | Evidence from the Novel | My Take |
|---|---|---|
| Rejection by De Laceys | Vol 2, Chap 7: Felix beats him with a stick | The final straw - humans he respected rejected him |
| Betrayal by Victor | Vol 2, Chap 2: Victor destroys the female creature | No hope for companionship left |
| Symbolic Anger | William's locket with Caroline's portrait | Seeing Victor's perfect family ignited jealousy |
Funny thing – in my book club last month, Sarah argued that the creature planned this from the start. I don't buy it. If you look at his narration, the rage feels spontaneous when William screams "monster!" That word cut deeper than anything.
Breaking Down the Exact Moment in Plainpalais
Here's how it went down chronologically. The creature was wandering in the woods near Geneva around sunset. William was playing hide-and-seek near the execution ground (ironic, right?). Their encounter lasted maybe five minutes according to the novel. What's chilling is William's dialogue:
- "Hideous monster! Let me go!"
- "My papa is a syndic – he will punish you!"
Big mistake. That threat triggered the creature's memory of being whipped and shot. He later admits: "The child still struggled and loaded me with epithets which carried despair to my heart". I've always wondered – if William hadn't called him a monster, would he have let him go?
Spatial Relationships During the Attack
Key Locations:
- Where William was seized: Oak tree near the execution grounds
- Distance from Geneva: Approximately 3 miles
- Creature's approach path: From the forest edge toward the lake
Why Did the Creature Seize William? Multiple Layers
This is the core question we're all asking: why did the creature seize the small boy William? After teaching this book six times, I've realized there's no single answer. Here's how I break it down for my students:
- Revenge Against Victor - "You belong to my enemy!" he tells William. Direct payback for abandonment.
- Psychological Break - That instant rage when called a monster felt deeply human to me.
- Twisted Companionship - He admits wanting to "educate [William] as my companion". Creepy but revealing.
- Symbolic Destruction - Killing Victor's "perfect" brother destroys his creator's world.
Honestly, I think Mary Shelley was showing us how cycles of abuse work. Victor abused the creature through neglect, and the creature repeats the violence. When I volunteered at a youth shelter, I saw similar patterns – hurt people hurting people.
Common Misconceptions About This Scene
| Myth | Reality |
|---|---|
| The creature randomly attacked a child | He targeted William specifically as Victor's brother |
| It was premeditated murder | The creature's narration shows spontaneous rage |
| William died quickly | Text suggests several minutes of struggle |
Aftermath and Consequences Nobody Talks About
This wasn't just about William's death. Look what happened next:
- Justine Moritz was framed and executed
- Victor's father collapsed from grief
- Elizabeth became terrified of having children
Most importantly, it cemented the creature's path as a killer. Before William, he'd only harmed indirectly (like causing Felix's arrest). After? He tells Victor: "I declared everlasting war against the species". That scene in Plainpalais was his point of no return. Still gives me nightmares how one violent act spiraled.
Reader Questions I Get All the Time
Did the creature actually mean to kill William from the start?
Not according to his own account. He says: "I could seize him and educate him as my companion and friend". The killing seems impulsive when William resists.
What symbolism is there in William's death location?
Plainpalais was Geneva's execution ground. By killing Victor's brother there, the creature symbolically executes Victor's legacy. Shelley loved these dark parallels.
How does this scene explain the creature's motives?
It reveals his core conflict – craving connection but causing destruction. His tragedy is understanding morality but being unable to escape his rage.
Why did Shelley choose a child victim?
To maximize horror and show innocence corrupted. William represents everything the creature can never have: family, acceptance, a normal life.
How Film Adaptations Botch This Scene
Okay, rant time. Every Frankenstein movie I've seen gets this wrong. The 1931 Boris Karloff version? Creature drowns a little girl by accident. Branagh's 1994 film? Makes it look like a calculated murder. Neither captures the complex psychology of why the creature seized the small boy William. They miss:
- The significance of William calling him "monster"
- The locket with Caroline's portrait
- The creature's initial desire for companionship
My film student nephew argues it's "too nuanced for cinema." Maybe he's right. But I'd love to see a director try.
Essential Elements Most Adaptations Skip
Missing details matter:
- William's threat: "My papa will punish you!"
- The creature recognizing the Frankenstein name
- The stolen locket planted on Justine
- Creature watching Victor's grief from afar
Why This Matters Beyond Frankenstein
Look, I know we're analyzing fiction here. But when my cousin's kid got bullied into violence last year, I kept thinking about this scene. Shelley shows us how isolation breeds monsters. The creature wasn't born evil – he was made monstrous through rejection. That's why why did the creature seize the small boy William remains relevant. It forces us to ask:
- When does victim become perpetrator?
- How much responsibility do creators bear?
- Can we condemn violence while understanding its roots?
Honestly? I side with the creature more each time I reread it. Does that disturb me? Absolutely. But Shelley's genius is making us uncomfortable. That moment when William's body went still wasn't just about revenge. It was the scream of something that wanted love and got horror instead. Still gives me chills.
Scholarly Debates Worth Noting
Academics have fought over this scene for decades. Here's where they disagree:
| Interpretation School | View on William's Death | Weakness |
|---|---|---|
| Psychological Critics | Result of attachment disorder | Ignores societal factors |
| Feminist Readings | Destruction of domestic innocence | Overlooks creature's trauma |
| Postcolonial Theory | Oppressed becoming oppressor | Forced parallel? |
Me? I think they all miss something. Last summer at a literary conference, I heard a grad student argue it was about labor exploitation – Victor's "creation" destroying his leisure class family. Weird take, but kinda brilliant.
Personal Conclusion: Why We Keep Asking
So why are we still obsessing over why did the creature seize the small boy William 200 years later? Because it holds up a mirror. That moment in Plainpalais makes us ask uncomfortable questions about revenge cycles and parental neglect. I've come to see it not as horror, but tragedy. Two beings destroyed by one creator's arrogance.
Final thought? If Victor had shown compassion when the creature reached out at his bedside, William might've grown old. That haunts me more than any monster. Makes you wonder how many modern "creatures" we create through indifference. Heavy stuff for a Tuesday afternoon, right? But that's Shelley for you – never lets you off easy.
Comment