Common Interpretation of Frankenstein

I have always been a little baffled at the common understanding of the novel and think that often times this common interpretation actually makes people miss some of the more interesting points I believe the novel is trying to make.

Most people I have had conversations about the novel seem to focus on the Monster. They seems to focus on the pain the monster feels being rejected both by it's creator and the world around him. They are right in recognizing this pain and realizing that -- while in my opinion, a little extreme -- the monster's decision to dedicate it's life to ruining the life of it's creator is not pure unexplainable evil but a very human reaction to it's situation. Frankenstein was smart enough to be able to make his monster physically, but not smart enough to realize that people do not live in isolation; there needs to also be a place for them in the world in which they inhabit.

This seems to lead to most people completely demonizing Frankenstein. "Knowledge is knowing that Frankenstein is not the monster. Wisdom is knowing that Frankenstein is the monster." Seems to be a common sentiment I see. I have also had many conversations where people tell me that Frankenstein should have just fulfilled the monster's wish for a partner and everything would have worked out fine; a point of view I find a little ironic since it lacks the foresight -- in the same way Victor did -- and fails to consider the unforeseen complications that could arise. I have always felt a more correct reading was Victor as someone who's drive and intelligence we should admire but realize that his over emphasis in these areas leads him to make a mistake in his Hubris that he can not take back that will inevitably lead to his downfall; ie an incarnation of the Tragic Hero.

I first read the novel in Grade 10 AP English and was surprised by how different my reading of it was from what I had heard about it. I read the novel as very closely following the formula of the Greek/Victorian Tragedy where Victor's "Challenge of the Gods" is represented by him using his advanced understanding of physical science to create a humanoid life without properly understanding the full ramifications of that; leading to his downfall (essentially) at the hands of his creation. I think the alternative name of the novel The Modern Prometheus seems to be as close to a confirmation to this interpretation as I could think of. I was extremely surprised when my English teacher didn't like my essay proposal to view the novel through the lens of Victor being a flawed but sympathetic Tragic Hero who makes an irreversible mistake of creating the monster and then spends the rest of the novel/his life being obsessed with correcting his mistake which eventually leaves him dead and alone in the Arctic. She instead insisted that I focus on the Monster and how it was unfair that it was brought into a world with no place for him and a creator who rejected him.

While I don't think focusing on the monster is a totally invalid way to view the novel, I think the messages you take away from the novel when you view Victor as purely a "Monster" and the Monster as purely a victim become a bit more 2 dimensional and muddier that viewing Victor as a sympathetic but flawed character who's downfall we can learn things from.

But maybe this is just people not seeming to understand Tragedies as a literary form as much any more. The number of times I have had discussions about Shakespeare Tragedies (ie whether Romeo and Juliette it is a great love story or about young stupid kids who get everyone killed rather than recognizing that it is suppose to be both; and that is in and of itself the Tragedy) where people want to make clear black and white proclamations about the if the Hero is "Good" or "Bad" rather than understanding the whole genre is based on their Heroes being "Good, but fatally flawed" and learning from watching their downfall.