Antagonist

"I knew that I was preparing myself for a deadly torture; but I was the slave, not the master, of an impulse, which I detested, yet could not disobey. Yet when she died!- nay then I was not miserable. I had cast off all feeling, subdued all alnguish, to riot in the excess of my despair. Evil thenceforth became my good." Pg. 164

     Alright, I have to give Mary Shelley credit on crafting a novel in which every argument to be made against the actions of one character is balanced against sympathy for that character due to his circumstances. This dilemma presented itself to me several times when I contemplated the creature's actions and motives. However, I make my stance known that the creature is most definitely the antagonist in this work. He blocks the actions of Victor by causing him worry over his impending actioins, and gives him dispair when he kills off the people whom Victor so dearly loves. This conclusion is slightly hard to come by, because Shelley conjures up a sympathy for the creature throughout the story. I truly feel sorry for the creature when he explains his only wish of a companion because he cannot speak to man without man's terror consuming the situation. Towards the end of the novel, the creature returns and expresses his regret and guilt for having indirectly killed Victor. He explains how "evil became his good" and he had no remorse for killing. Although his feelings of revenge were severe, the monster is most definitely the antagonist because he chose the easier route. He could have lived in solitude and avoided man for the rest of his life. By doing so, he rejects the possibility of finding happiness. Although this prospect is grim, the alternative, which actually transpires, leaves many people dead and both Victor and the creature exhausted and dead. Perhaps the creature could have been considered a moral character had he accepted his very grim fate.