# data[].attributes.body
...What the hell happened here?

# data[].attributes.body
seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits
tor because he is incredi
tor because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he belie
re." Because Walton has t
re." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 


more_vert
om pg.17 "Even broken ins
om pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this adm
notes during the conversa
notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed idea
I believe that neither W
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits.' The word consented implies reluctance while the descriptions of his own feelings demonstrate that he is in no place to empathise the creature as he is too occupied considering himself.
Ashleigh
Ashleigh
Frankenstein is a reliable narrator in the sense that he is accurately describing his experiences to the best of his ability. I believe that Frankenstein has no real motive to lie to Walton, in fact he is telling his tale in all its horror to help Walton overcome the very traits that destroyed Frankenstein. After Walton reveals his desires to conquer the land and become powerful, Frankenstein cries, "You share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught? ... let me reveal my tale ... you will dash the cup from your lips!" (p19), referring to the madness of arrogance and pride.  Furthermore, at the conclusion of his story he implores Walton to "learn [F'stein's] miseries, and to do not seek to increase [his] own" (p216). With this in mind, all of Frankenstein's comments on his story are there to emphasise but not distort the morals and fundamental elements of his tale.  While Frankenstein does refer to his creation as a daemon or monster, Frankenstein also relays (presumably truthfully) the monster's tale and their conversations - in which the monster is presented as somewhat gentle - including his plea for a companion. If he had wanted to display the creature as a complete monster, would he not have changed this to a threatening demand for a mate, as Frankenstein had originally thought? The inclusion of these details and Frankenstein's eventual realisation of his misdeeds suggests that he has told a reliable account of events, the way that he perceived them.

As for Walton, I also believe that his recollection of events is reliable. Although he can at times appear to be biased towards Frankenstein, ultimately he listens to the creation as well as Frankenstein, because for the most part he is a virtuous man - more empathetic and considerate than Frankenstein was. During their encounter, the creation remarks, "it is not thus ... yet such must be the impression conveyed to you" (p227), and Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Erin
I believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators because they are both influenced by bias and arrogance. Walton, for a majority of the story, only knew Frankenstein's side of events. Due to Frankenstein's extreme bias, as a result of his conceited and cowardly attitude, he did not convey the story accurately and caused Walton's premeditated opinion of the monster as a savage. Their narration is also unreliable because they are influenced by arrogance, causing Frankenstein to have a closed mind to the monster's plea for companionship. However, Walton had an open mind to the monster and was able to convey an alternate mind set to the reader during the conclusion of the novel. Both of these narrators are unreliable in this novel because they do not accurately convey an equal novel in regards to character portrayal. 
Felicia
Felicia
I believe that Frankenstein and Walton are not fully reliable narrators as their perspectives contain bias and prejudice against the Creature's story; this allows them to put their hardships and struggles at the forefront, opposed to giving a reliable recount of events which would involve the equal consideration of other characters' perspectives. This is displayed through Walton's favouritism of Frankenstein, who Walton believed to be a 'magnificent mind' whereas he regarded the Creature as a 'loathsome' and 'horrible'. Walton praised Frankenstein and treated his character with the utmost sympathy, displaying a deeper, soulful connection. Consequently, this results in a recount of events primarily retold in Frankenstein's point of view whereas the Creature's section within the narrative is shorter and less detailed, showing the bias and subsequent unreliability of the narrative. (I left my book at school, sorry there isn't more evidence from the text)
TOP TIP
TOP TIP
Don't forget to put your name with the post! 
They do not give sympathy
They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the 
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
olds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matche
I believe that Frankenste
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
THIS IS WHAT METH DOES TO THE HUMAN BODY. FEAR IT. DONT DO DRUGS
THIS IS WHAT METH DOES TO THE HUMAN BODY. FEAR IT. DONT DO DRUGS
I WANT TO SUCK YOUR DICK
I WANT TO SUCK YOUR DICK 
why is so taboo to hate jews now?
why is so taboo to hate jews now?
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
Will suck cock for the google classroom answers. Bang my line
sympathetic
sympathetic
ive to be an instrument o
ive to be an instrument of mischief
I believe that neither W
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits
tor because he is incredi
tor because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he belie
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 
Walton’s desire for a clo
Walton’s desire for a close male friend on this journey is narcissistic at is core. 
liability contributes to
liability contributes to an interpretation of the work as a whole. 
DEEZ NUTS
DEEZ NUTS
Fuck goin on yall? Also Ashleigh u still aint pay me back for the gram... its $30 bro 
and bruh Gracie u smell like rotten eggs No cap

but aye michelle hit my line im tryna smash 
yes
yes
more_horiz Icon RELIABLE
more_horiz
Icon
RELIABLE NARRATOR?
In this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
Avatar of Abby Davey
Abby Davey
 +  32
●
13d
ankenstein gives an accou
ankenstein gives an account of 
Frankenstein gives an acc
Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will 
In Walton's letters he me
In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet.
Walton listens to the cre
Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Walton listens to the cre
Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
a
a
pg.17 "Even broken inspi
 pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of natur
No he is very bad na
No he is very bad narrator 
that he believes that he
that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on 
Walton only chooses to te
Walton only chooses to tell the st
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 

om pg.17 "Even broken ins
om pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this adm
notes during the conversa
notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed idea
I believe that neither W
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits.' The word consented implies reluctance while the descriptions of his own feelings demonstrate that he is in no place to empathise the creature as he is too occupied considering himself.
Ashleigh
Ashleigh
Frankenstein is a reliable narrator in the sense that he is accurately describing his experiences to the best of his ability. I believe that Frankenstein has no real motive to lie to Walton, in fact he is telling his tale in all its horror to help Walton overcome the very traits that destroyed Frankenstein. After Walton reveals his desires to conquer the land and become powerful, Frankenstein cries, "You share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught? ... let me reveal my tale ... you will dash the cup from your lips!" (p19), referring to the madness of arrogance and pride.  Furthermore, at the conclusion of his story he implores Walton to "learn [F'stein's] miseries, and to do not seek to increase [his] own" (p216). With this in mind, all of Frankenstein's comments on his story are there to emphasise but not distort the morals and fundamental elements of his tale.  While Frankenstein does refer to his creation as a daemon or monster, Frankenstein also relays (presumably truthfully) the monster's tale and their conversations - in which the monster is presented as somewhat gentle - including his plea for a companion. If he had wanted to display the creature as a complete monster, would he not have changed this to a threatening demand for a mate, as Frankenstein had originally thought? The inclusion of these details and Frankenstein's eventual realisation of his misdeeds suggests that he has told a reliable account of events, the way that he perceived them.

As for Walton, I also believe that his recollection of events is reliable. Although he can at times appear to be biased towards Frankenstein, ultimately he listens to the creation as well as Frankenstein, because for the most part he is a virtuous man - more empathetic and considerate than Frankenstein was. During their encounter, the creation remarks, "it is not thus ... yet such must be the impression conveyed to you" (p227), and Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Erin
I believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators because they are both influenced by bias and arrogance. Walton, for a majority of the story, only knew Frankenstein's side of events. Due to Frankenstein's extreme bias, as a result of his conceited and cowardly attitude, he did not convey the story accurately and caused Walton's premeditated opinion of the monster as a savage. Their narration is also unreliable because they are influenced by arrogance, causing Frankenstein to have a closed mind to the monster's plea for companionship. However, Walton had an open mind to the monster and was able to convey an alternate mind set to the reader during the conclusion of the novel. Both of these narrators are unreliable in this novel because they do not accurately convey an equal novel in regards to character portrayal. 
Felicia
Felicia
I believe that Frankenstein and Walton are not fully reliable narrators as their perspectives contain bias and prejudice against the Creature's story; this allows them to put their hardships and struggles at the forefront, opposed to giving a reliable recount of events which would involve the equal consideration of other characters' perspectives. This is displayed through Walton's favouritism of Frankenstein, who Walton believed to be a 'magnificent mind' whereas he regarded the Creature as a 'loathsome' and 'horrible'. Walton praised Frankenstein and treated his character with the utmost sympathy, displaying a deeper, soulful connection. Consequently, this results in a recount of events primarily retold in Frankenstein's point of view whereas the Creature's section within the narrative is shorter and less detailed, showing the bias and subsequent unreliability of the narrative. (I left my book at school, sorry there isn't more evidence from the text)
TOP TIP
TOP TIP
Don't forget to put your name with the post! 
They do not give sympathy
They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the 
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 

more_vert
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 
Walton’s desire for a clo
Walton’s desire for a close male friend on this journey is narcissistic at is core. 
liability contributes to
liability contributes to an interpretation of the work as a whole. 
DEEZ NUTS
DEEZ NUTS
Fuck goin on yall

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Frankenste
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
THIS IS WHAT METH DOES TO THE HUMAN BODY. FEAR IT. DONT DO DRUGS
THIS IS WHAT METH DOES TO THE HUMAN BODY. FEAR IT. DONT DO DRUGS

more_vert
I WANT TO SUCK YOUR DICK
I WANT TO SUCK YOUR DICK 
why is so taboo to hate jews now?
why is so taboo to hate jews now?
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
Will suck cock for the google classroom answers. Bang my line
sympathetic
sympathetic
ive to be an instrument o
ive to be an instrument of mischief
olds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matche
I believe that neither W
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits
tor because he is incredi
tor because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he belie
re." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 


more_vert
om pg.17 "Even broken ins
om pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this adm
notes during the conversa
notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed idea
I believe that neither W
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits.' The word consented implies reluctance while the descriptions of his own feelings demonstrate that he is in no place to empathise the creature as he is too occupied considering himself.
Ashleigh
Ashleigh
Frankenstein is a reliable narrator in the sense that he is accurately describing his experiences to the best of his ability. I believe that Frankenstein has no real motive to lie to Walton, in fact he is telling his tale in all its horror to help Walton overcome the very traits that destroyed Frankenstein. After Walton reveals his desires to conquer the land and become powerful, Frankenstein cries, "You share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught? ... let me reveal my tale ... you will dash the cup from your lips!" (p19), referring to the madness of arrogance and pride.  Furthermore, at the conclusion of his story he implores Walton to "learn [F'stein's] miseries, and to do not seek to increase [his] own" (p216). With this in mind, all of Frankenstein's comments on his story are there to emphasise but not distort the morals and fundamental elements of his tale.  While Frankenstein does refer to his creation as a daemon or monster, Frankenstein also relays (presumably truthfully) the monster's tale and their conversations - in which the monster is presented as somewhat gentle - including his plea for a companion. If he had wanted to display the creature as a complete monster, would he not have changed this to a threatening demand for a mate, as Frankenstein had originally thought? The inclusion of these details and Frankenstein's eventual realisation of his misdeeds suggests that he has told a reliable account of events, the way that he perceived them.

As for Walton, I also believe that his recollection of events is reliable. Although he can at times appear to be biased towards Frankenstein, ultimately he listens to the creation as well as Frankenstein, because for the most part he is a virtuous man - more empathetic and considerate than Frankenstein was. During their encounter, the creation remarks, "it is not thus ... yet such must be the impression conveyed to you" (p227), and Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Erin
I believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators because they are both influenced by bias and arrogance. Walton, for a majority of the story, only knew Frankenstein's side of events. Due to Frankenstein's extreme bias, as a result of his conceited and cowardly attitude, he did not convey the story accurately and caused Walton's premeditated opinion of the monster as a savage. Their narration is also unreliable because they are influenced by arrogance, causing Frankenstein to have a closed mind to the monster's plea for companionship. However, Walton had an open mind to the monster and was able to convey an alternate mind set to the reader during the conclusion of the novel. Both of these narrators are unreliable in this novel because they do not accurately convey an equal novel in regards to character portrayal. 
Felicia
Felicia
I believe that Frankenstein and Walton are not fully reliable narrators as their perspectives contain bias and prejudice against the Creature's story; this allows them to put their hardships and struggles at the forefront, opposed to giving a reliable recount of events which would involve the equal consideration of other characters' perspectives. This is displayed through Walton's favouritism of Frankenstein, who Walton believed to be a 'magnificent mind' whereas he regarded the Creature as a 'loathsome' and 'horrible'. Walton praised Frankenstein and treated his character with the utmost sympathy, displaying a deeper, soulful connection. Consequently, this results in a recount of events primarily retold in Frankenstein's point of view whereas the Creature's section within the narrative is shorter and less detailed, showing the bias and subsequent unreliability of the narrative. (I left my book at school, sorry there isn't more evidence from the text)
TOP TIP
TOP TIP
Don't forget to put your name with the post! 
They do not give sympathy
They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the 
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
olds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matche
I believe that Frankenste
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
THIS IS WHAT METH DOES TO THE HUMAN BODY. FEAR IT. DONT DO DRUGS
THIS IS WHAT METH DOES TO THE HUMAN BODY. FEAR IT. DONT DO DRUGS
I WANT TO SUCK YOUR DICK
I WANT TO SUCK YOUR DICK 
why is so taboo to hate jews now?
why is so taboo to hate jews now?
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
Will suck cock for the google classroom answers. Bang my line
sympathetic
sympathetic
ive to be an instrument o
ive to be an instrument of mischief
I believe that neither W
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits
tor because he is incredi
tor because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he belie
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 
Walton’s desire for a clo
Walton’s desire for a close male friend on this journey is narcissistic at is core. 
liability contributes to
liability contributes to an interpretation of the work as a whole. 
DEEZ NUTS
DEEZ NUTS
Fuck goin on yall? Also Ashleigh u still aint pay me back for the gram... its $30 bro 
and bruh Gracie u smell like rotten eggs No cap

but aye michelle hit my line im tryna smash 
yes
yes
more_horiz Icon RELIABLE
more_horiz
Icon
RELIABLE NARRATOR?
In this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
Avatar of Abby Davey
Abby Davey
 +  32
●
13d
ankenstein gives an accou
ankenstein gives an account of 
Frankenstein gives an acc
Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will 
In Walton's letters he me
In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet.
Walton listens to the cre
Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Walton listens to the cre
Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
a
a
pg.17 "Even broken inspi
 pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of natur
No he is very bad na
No he is very bad narrator 
that he believes that he
that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on 
Walton only chooses to te
Walton only chooses to tell the st
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 

om pg.17 "Even broken ins
om pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this adm
notes during the conversa
notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed idea
I believe that neither W
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits.' The word consented implies reluctance while the descriptions of his own feelings demonstrate that he is in no place to empathise the creature as he is too occupied considering himself.
Ashleigh
Ashleigh
Frankenstein is a reliable narrator in the sense that he is accurately describing his experiences to the best of his ability. I believe that Frankenstein has no real motive to lie to Walton, in fact he is telling his tale in all its horror to help Walton overcome the very traits that destroyed Frankenstein. After Walton reveals his desires to conquer the land and become powerful, Frankenstein cries, "You share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught? ... let me reveal my tale ... you will dash the cup from your lips!" (p19), referring to the madness of arrogance and pride.  Furthermore, at the conclusion of his story he implores Walton to "learn [F'stein's] miseries, and to do not seek to increase [his] own" (p216). With this in mind, all of Frankenstein's comments on his story are there to emphasise but not distort the morals and fundamental elements of his tale.  While Frankenstein does refer to his creation as a daemon or monster, Frankenstein also relays (presumably truthfully) the monster's tale and their conversations - in which the monster is presented as somewhat gentle - including his plea for a companion. If he had wanted to display the creature as a complete monster, would he not have changed this to a threatening demand for a mate, as Frankenstein had originally thought? The inclusion of these details and Frankenstein's eventual realisation of his misdeeds suggests that he has told a reliable account of events, the way that he perceived them.

As for Walton, I also believe that his recollection of events is reliable. Although he can at times appear to be biased towards Frankenstein, ultimately he listens to the creation as well as Frankenstein, because for the most part he is a virtuous man - more empathetic and considerate than Frankenstein was. During their encounter, the creation remarks, "it is not thus ... yet such must be the impression conveyed to you" (p227), and Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Erin
I believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators because they are both influenced by bias and arrogance. Walton, for a majority of the story, only knew Frankenstein's side of events. Due to Frankenstein's extreme bias, as a result of his conceited and cowardly attitude, he did not convey the story accurately and caused Walton's premeditated opinion of the monster as a savage. Their narration is also unreliable because they are influenced by arrogance, causing Frankenstein to have a closed mind to the monster's plea for companionship. However, Walton had an open mind to the monster and was able to convey an alternate mind set to the reader during the conclusion of the novel. Both of these narrators are unreliable in this novel because they do not accurately convey an equal novel in regards to character portrayal. 
Felicia
Felicia
I believe that Frankenstein and Walton are not fully reliable narrators as their perspectives contain bias and prejudice against the Creature's story; this allows them to put their hardships and struggles at the forefront, opposed to giving a reliable recount of events which would involve the equal consideration of other characters' perspectives. This is displayed through Walton's favouritism of Frankenstein, who Walton believed to be a 'magnificent mind' whereas he regarded the Creature as a 'loathsome' and 'horrible'. Walton praised Frankenstein and treated his character with the utmost sympathy, displaying a deeper, soulful connection. Consequently, this results in a recount of events primarily retold in Frankenstein's point of view whereas the Creature's section within the narrative is shorter and less detailed, showing the bias and subsequent unreliability of the narrative. (I left my book at school, sorry there isn't more evidence from the text)
TOP TIP
TOP TIP
Don't forget to put your name with the post! 
They do not give sympathy
They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the 
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 

more_vert
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 
Walton’s desire for a clo
Walton’s desire for a close male friend on this journey is narcissistic at is core. 
liability contributes to
liability contributes to an interpretation of the work as a whole. 
DEEZ NUTS
DEEZ NUTS
Fuck goin on yall? Also Ashleigh u still aint pay me back for the gram... its $30 bro 
and bruh Gracie u smell like rotten eggs No cap

but aye michelle hit my line im tryna smash 
yes
yes
more_horiz Icon RELIABLE
more_horiz
Icon
RELIABLE NARRATOR?
In this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
Avatar of Abby Davey
Abby Davey
 +  32
●
13d
ankenstein gives an accou
ankenstein gives an account of 
Frankenstein gives an acc
Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will 
In Walton's letters he me
In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet.
Walton listens to the cre
Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Walton listens to the cre
Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
a
a
pg.17 "Even broken inspi
 pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of natur
No he is very bad na
No he is very bad narrator 
that he believes that he
that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on 
Walton only chooses to te
Walton only chooses to tell the st
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 

om pg.17 "Even broken ins
om pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this adm
notes during the conversa
notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed idea
I believe that neither W
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits.' The word consented implies reluctance while the descriptions of his own feelings demonstrate that he is in no place to empathise the creature as he is too occupied considering himself.
Ashleigh
Ashleigh
Frankenstein is a reliable narrator in the sense that he is accurately describing his experiences to the best of his ability. I believe that Frankenstein has no real motive to lie to Walton, in fact he is telling his tale in all its horror to help Walton overcome the very traits that destroyed Frankenstein. After Walton reveals his desires to conquer the land and become powerful, Frankenstein cries, "You share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught? ... let me reveal my tale ... you will dash the cup from your lips!" (p19), referring to the madness of arrogance and pride.  Furthermore, at the conclusion of his story he implores Walton to "learn [F'stein's] miseries, and to do not seek to increase [his] own" (p216). With this in mind, all of Frankenstein's comments on his story are there to emphasise but not distort the morals and fundamental elements of his tale.  While Frankenstein does refer to his creation as a daemon or monster, Frankenstein also relays (presumably truthfully) the monster's tale and their conversations - in which the monster is presented as somewhat gentle - including his plea for a companion. If he had wanted to display the creature as a complete monster, would he not have changed this to a threatening demand for a mate, as Frankenstein had originally thought? The inclusion of these details and Frankenstein's eventual realisation of his misdeeds suggests that he has told a reliable account of events, the way that he perceived them.

As for Walton, I also believe that his recollection of events is reliable. Although he can at times appear to be biased towards Frankenstein, ultimately he listens to the creation as well as Frankenstein, because for the most part he is a virtuous man - more empathetic and considerate than Frankenstein was. During their encounter, the creation remarks, "it is not thus ... yet such must be the impression conveyed to you" (p227), and Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Erin
I believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators because they are both influenced by bias and arrogance. Walton, for a majority of the story, only knew Frankenstein's side of events. Due to Frankenstein's extreme bias, as a result of his conceited and cowardly attitude, he did not convey the story accurately and caused Walton's premeditated opinion of the monster as a savage. Their narration is also unreliable because they are influenced by arrogance, causing Frankenstein to have a closed mind to the monster's plea for companionship. However, Walton had an open mind to the monster and was able to convey an alternate mind set to the reader during the conclusion of the novel. Both of these narrators are unreliable in this novel because they do not accurately convey an equal novel in regards to character portrayal. 
Felicia
Felicia
I believe that Frankenstein and Walton are not fully reliable narrators as their perspectives contain bias and prejudice against the Creature's story; this allows them to put their hardships and struggles at the forefront, opposed to giving a reliable recount of events which would involve the equal consideration of other characters' perspectives. This is displayed through Walton's favouritism of Frankenstein, who Walton believed to be a 'magnificent mind' whereas he regarded the Creature as a 'loathsome' and 'horrible'. Walton praised Frankenstein and treated his character with the utmost sympathy, displaying a deeper, soulful connection. Consequently, this results in a recount of events primarily retold in Frankenstein's point of view whereas the Creature's section within the narrative is shorter and less detailed, showing the bias and subsequent unreliability of the narrative. (I left my book at school, sorry there isn't more evidence from the text)
TOP TIP
TOP TIP
Don't forget to put your name with the post! 
They do not give sympathy
They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the 
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
re." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 


more_vert
om pg.17 "Even broken ins
om pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this adm
notes during the conversa
notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed idea
I believe that neither W
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits.' The word consented implies reluctance while the descriptions of his own feelings demonstrate that he is in no place to empathise the creature as he is too occupied considering himself.
Ashleigh
Ashleigh
Frankenstein is a reliable narrator in the sense that he is accurately describing his experiences to the best of his ability. I believe that Frankenstein has no real motive to lie to Walton, in fact he is telling his tale in all its horror to help Walton overcome the very traits that destroyed Frankenstein. After Walton reveals his desires to conquer the land and become powerful, Frankenstein cries, "You share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught? ... let me reveal my tale ... you will dash the cup from your lips!" (p19), referring to the madness of arrogance and pride.  Furthermore, at the conclusion of his story he implores Walton to "learn [F'stein's] miseries, and to do not seek to increase [his] own" (p216). With this in mind, all of Frankenstein's comments on his story are there to emphasise but not distort the morals and fundamental elements of his tale.  While Frankenstein does refer to his creation as a daemon or monster, Frankenstein also relays (presumably truthfully) the monster's tale and their conversations - in which the monster is presented as somewhat gentle - including his plea for a companion. If he had wanted to display the creature as a complete monster, would he not have changed this to a threatening demand for a mate, as Frankenstein had originally thought? The inclusion of these details and Frankenstein's eventual realisation of his misdeeds suggests that he has told a reliable account of events, the way that he perceived them.

As for Walton, I also believe that his recollection of events is reliable. Although he can at times appear to be biased towards Frankenstein, ultimately he listens to the creation as well as Frankenstein, because for the most part he is a virtuous man - more empathetic and considerate than Frankenstein was. During their encounter, the creation remarks, "it is not thus ... yet such must be the impression conveyed to you" (p227), and Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Erin
I believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators because they are both influenced by bias and arrogance. Walton, for a majority of the story, only knew Frankenstein's side of events. Due to Frankenstein's extreme bias, as a result of his conceited and cowardly attitude, he did not convey the story accurately and caused Walton's premeditated opinion of the monster as a savage. Their narration is also unreliable because they are influenced by arrogance, causing Frankenstein to have a closed mind to the monster's plea for companionship. However, Walton had an open mind to the monster and was able to convey an alternate mind set to the reader during the conclusion of the novel. Both of these narrators are unreliable in this novel because they do not accurately convey an equal novel in regards to character portrayal. 
Felicia
Felicia
I believe that Frankenstein and Walton are not fully reliable narrators as their perspectives contain bias and prejudice against the Creature's story; this allows them to put their hardships and struggles at the forefront, opposed to giving a reliable recount of events which would involve the equal consideration of other characters' perspectives. This is displayed through Walton's favouritism of Frankenstein, who Walton believed to be a 'magnificent mind' whereas he regarded the Creature as a 'loathsome' and 'horrible'. Walton praised Frankenstein and treated his character with the utmost sympathy, displaying a deeper, soulful connection. Consequently, this results in a recount of events primarily retold in Frankenstein's point of view whereas the Creature's section within the narrative is shorter and less detailed, showing the bias and subsequent unreliability of the narrative. (I left my book at school, sorry there isn't more evidence from the text)
TOP TIP
TOP TIP
Don't forget to put your name with the post! 
They do not give sympathy
They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the 
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.

# data[].attributes.headline
THIS IS WHAT METH DOES TO THE HUMAN BODY. FEAR IT. DONT DO DRUGS

# data[].attributes.subject
THIS IS WHAT METH DOES TO THE HUMAN BODY. FEAR IT. DONT DO DRUGS

# data[].attributes.body
Will suck cock for the google classroom answers. Bang my line

# data[].attributes.body
olds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matche

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits

# data[].attributes.body
tor because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he belie

# data[].attributes.body
re." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 


more_vert
om pg.17 "Even broken ins
om pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this adm
notes during the conversa
notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed idea
I believe that neither W
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits.' The word consented implies reluctance while the descriptions of his own feelings demonstrate that he is in no place to empathise the creature as he is too occupied considering himself.
Ashleigh
Ashleigh
Frankenstein is a reliable narrator in the sense that he is accurately describing his experiences to the best of his ability. I believe that Frankenstein has no real motive to lie to Walton, in fact he is telling his tale in all its horror to help Walton overcome the very traits that destroyed Frankenstein. After Walton reveals his desires to conquer the land and become powerful, Frankenstein cries, "You share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught? ... let me reveal my tale ... you will dash the cup from your lips!" (p19), referring to the madness of arrogance and pride.  Furthermore, at the conclusion of his story he implores Walton to "learn [F'stein's] miseries, and to do not seek to increase [his] own" (p216). With this in mind, all of Frankenstein's comments on his story are there to emphasise but not distort the morals and fundamental elements of his tale.  While Frankenstein does refer to his creation as a daemon or monster, Frankenstein also relays (presumably truthfully) the monster's tale and their conversations - in which the monster is presented as somewhat gentle - including his plea for a companion. If he had wanted to display the creature as a complete monster, would he not have changed this to a threatening demand for a mate, as Frankenstein had originally thought? The inclusion of these details and Frankenstein's eventual realisation of his misdeeds suggests that he has told a reliable account of events, the way that he perceived them.

As for Walton, I also believe that his recollection of events is reliable. Although he can at times appear to be biased towards Frankenstein, ultimately he listens to the creation as well as Frankenstein, because for the most part he is a virtuous man - more empathetic and considerate than Frankenstein was. During their encounter, the creation remarks, "it is not thus ... yet such must be the impression conveyed to you" (p227), and Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Erin
I believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators because they are both influenced by bias and arrogance. Walton, for a majority of the story, only knew Frankenstein's side of events. Due to Frankenstein's extreme bias, as a result of his conceited and cowardly attitude, he did not convey the story accurately and caused Walton's premeditated opinion of the monster as a savage. Their narration is also unreliable because they are influenced by arrogance, causing Frankenstein to have a closed mind to the monster's plea for companionship. However, Walton had an open mind to the monster and was able to convey an alternate mind set to the reader during the conclusion of the novel. Both of these narrators are unreliable in this novel because they do not accurately convey an equal novel in regards to character portrayal. 
Felicia
Felicia
I believe that Frankenstein and Walton are not fully reliable narrators as their perspectives contain bias and prejudice against the Creature's story; this allows them to put their hardships and struggles at the forefront, opposed to giving a reliable recount of events which would involve the equal consideration of other characters' perspectives. This is displayed through Walton's favouritism of Frankenstein, who Walton believed to be a 'magnificent mind' whereas he regarded the Creature as a 'loathsome' and 'horrible'. Walton praised Frankenstein and treated his character with the utmost sympathy, displaying a deeper, soulful connection. Consequently, this results in a recount of events primarily retold in Frankenstein's point of view whereas the Creature's section within the narrative is shorter and less detailed, showing the bias and subsequent unreliability of the narrative. (I left my book at school, sorry there isn't more evidence from the text)
TOP TIP
TOP TIP
Don't forget to put your name with the post! 
They do not give sympathy
They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the 
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
olds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matche
I believe that Frankenste
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
THIS IS WHAT METH DOES TO THE HUMAN BODY. FEAR IT. DONT DO DRUGS
THIS IS WHAT METH DOES TO THE HUMAN BODY. FEAR IT. DONT DO DRUGS
I WANT TO SUCK YOUR DICK
I WANT TO SUCK YOUR DICK 
why is so taboo to hate jews now?
why is so taboo to hate jews now?
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
Will suck cock for the google classroom answers. Bang my line
sympathetic
sympathetic
ive to be an instrument o
ive to be an instrument of mischief
I believe that neither W
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits
tor because he is incredi
tor because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he belie
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 
Walton’s desire for a clo
Walton’s desire for a close male friend on this journey is narcissistic at is core. 
liability contributes to
liability contributes to an interpretation of the work as a whole. 
DEEZ NUTS
DEEZ NUTS
Fuck goin on yall? Also Ashleigh u still aint pay me back for the gram... its $30 bro 
and bruh Gracie u smell like rotten eggs No cap

but aye michelle hit my line im tryna smash 
yes
yes
more_horiz Icon RELIABLE
more_horiz
Icon
RELIABLE NARRATOR?
In this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
Avatar of Abby Davey
Abby Davey
 +  32
●
13d
ankenstein gives an accou
ankenstein gives an account of 
Frankenstein gives an acc
Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will 
In Walton's letters he me
In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet.
Walton listens to the cre
Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Walton listens to the cre
Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
a
a
pg.17 "Even broken inspi
 pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of natur
No he is very bad na
No he is very bad narrator 
that he believes that he
that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on 
Walton only chooses to te
Walton only chooses to tell the st
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 

om pg.17 "Even broken ins
om pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this adm
notes during the conversa
notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed idea
I believe that neither W
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits.' The word consented implies reluctance while the descriptions of his own feelings demonstrate that he is in no place to empathise the creature as he is too occupied considering himself.
Ashleigh
Ashleigh
Frankenstein is a reliable narrator in the sense that he is accurately describing his experiences to the best of his ability. I believe that Frankenstein has no real motive to lie to Walton, in fact he is telling his tale in all its horror to help Walton overcome the very traits that destroyed Frankenstein. After Walton reveals his desires to conquer the land and become powerful, Frankenstein cries, "You share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught? ... let me reveal my tale ... you will dash the cup from your lips!" (p19), referring to the madness of arrogance and pride.  Furthermore, at the conclusion of his story he implores Walton to "learn [F'stein's] miseries, and to do not seek to increase [his] own" (p216). With this in mind, all of Frankenstein's comments on his story are there to emphasise but not distort the morals and fundamental elements of his tale.  While Frankenstein does refer to his creation as a daemon or monster, Frankenstein also relays (presumably truthfully) the monster's tale and their conversations - in which the monster is presented as somewhat gentle - including his plea for a companion. If he had wanted to display the creature as a complete monster, would he not have changed this to a threatening demand for a mate, as Frankenstein had originally thought? The inclusion of these details and Frankenstein's eventual realisation of his misdeeds suggests that he has told a reliable account of events, the way that he perceived them.

As for Walton, I also believe that his recollection of events is reliable. Although he can at times appear to be biased towards Frankenstein, ultimately he listens to the creation as well as Frankenstein, because for the most part he is a virtuous man - more empathetic and considerate than Frankenstein was. During their encounter, the creation remarks, "it is not thus ... yet such must be the impression conveyed to you" (p227), and Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Erin
I believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators because they are both influenced by bias and arrogance. Walton, for a majority of the story, only knew Frankenstein's side of events. Due to Frankenstein's extreme bias, as a result of his conceited and cowardly attitude, he did not convey the story accurately and caused Walton's premeditated opinion of the monster as a savage. Their narration is also unreliable because they are influenced by arrogance, causing Frankenstein to have a closed mind to the monster's plea for companionship. However, Walton had an open mind to the monster and was able to convey an alternate mind set to the reader during the conclusion of the novel. Both of these narrators are unreliable in this novel because they do not accurately convey an equal novel in regards to character portrayal. 
Felicia
Felicia
I believe that Frankenstein and Walton are not fully reliable narrators as their perspectives contain bias and prejudice against the Creature's story; this allows them to put their hardships and struggles at the forefront, opposed to giving a reliable recount of events which would involve the equal consideration of other characters' perspectives. This is displayed through Walton's favouritism of Frankenstein, who Walton believed to be a 'magnificent mind' whereas he regarded the Creature as a 'loathsome' and 'horrible'. Walton praised Frankenstein and treated his character with the utmost sympathy, displaying a deeper, soulful connection. Consequently, this results in a recount of events primarily retold in Frankenstein's point of view whereas the Creature's section within the narrative is shorter and less detailed, showing the bias and subsequent unreliability of the narrative. (I left my book at school, sorry there isn't more evidence from the text)
TOP TIP
TOP TIP
Don't forget to put your name with the post! 
They do not give sympathy
They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the 
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 

more_vert
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie

# data[].attributes.body
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

# data[].attributes.body
Walton’s desire for a close male friend on this journey is narcissistic at is core. 

# data[].attributes.body
liability contributes to an interpretation of the work as a whole. 

# data[].attributes.body
Fuck goin on yall? Also Ashleigh u still aint pay me back for the gram... its $30 bro
and bruh Gracie u smell like rotten eggs No cap

but aye michelle hit my line im tryna smash

# data[].attributes.body
more_horiz
Icon
RELIABLE NARRATOR?
In this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
Avatar of Abby Davey
Abby Davey
 +  32
●
13d

# data[].attributes.body
Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will 

# data[].attributes.body
In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet.

# data[].attributes.body
Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin

# data[].attributes.body
Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin

# data[].attributes.body
 pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of natur

# data[].attributes.body
No he is very bad narrator

# data[].attributes.body
that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on 

# data[].attributes.body
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 

# data[].attributes.body
om pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this adm

# data[].attributes.body
notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed idea

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits.' The word consented implies reluctance while the descriptions of his own feelings demonstrate that he is in no place to empathise the creature as he is too occupied considering himself.
Ashleigh
Ashleigh
Frankenstein is a reliable narrator in the sense that he is accurately describing his experiences to the best of his ability. I believe that Frankenstein has no real motive to lie to Walton, in fact he is telling his tale in all its horror to help Walton overcome the very traits that destroyed Frankenstein. After Walton reveals his desires to conquer the land and become powerful, Frankenstein cries, "You share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught? ... let me reveal my tale ... you will dash the cup from your lips!" (p19), referring to the madness of arrogance and pride.  Furthermore, at the conclusion of his story he implores Walton to "learn [F'stein's] miseries, and to do not seek to increase [his] own" (p216). With this in mind, all of Frankenstein's comments on his story are there to emphasise but not distort the morals and fundamental elements of his tale.  While Frankenstein does refer to his creation as a daemon or monster, Frankenstein also relays (presumably truthfully) the monster's tale and their conversations - in which the monster is presented as somewhat gentle - including his plea for a companion. If he had wanted to display the creature as a complete monster, would he not have changed this to a threatening demand for a mate, as Frankenstein had originally thought? The inclusion of these details and Frankenstein's eventual realisation of his misdeeds suggests that he has told a reliable account of events, the way that he perceived them.

As for Walton, I also believe that his recollection of events is reliable. Although he can at times appear to be biased towards Frankenstein, ultimately he listens to the creation as well as Frankenstein, because for the most part he is a virtuous man - more empathetic and considerate than Frankenstein was. During their encounter, the creation remarks, "it is not thus ... yet such must be the impression conveyed to you" (p227), and Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Erin
I believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators because they are both influenced by bias and arrogance. Walton, for a majority of the story, only knew Frankenstein's side of events. Due to Frankenstein's extreme bias, as a result of his conceited and cowardly attitude, he did not convey the story accurately and caused Walton's premeditated opinion of the monster as a savage. Their narration is also unreliable because they are influenced by arrogance, causing Frankenstein to have a closed mind to the monster's plea for companionship. However, Walton had an open mind to the monster and was able to convey an alternate mind set to the reader during the conclusion of the novel. Both of these narrators are unreliable in this novel because they do not accurately convey an equal novel in regards to character portrayal. 
Felicia
Felicia
I believe that Frankenstein and Walton are not fully reliable narrators as their perspectives contain bias and prejudice against the Creature's story; this allows them to put their hardships and struggles at the forefront, opposed to giving a reliable recount of events which would involve the equal consideration of other characters' perspectives. This is displayed through Walton's favouritism of Frankenstein, who Walton believed to be a 'magnificent mind' whereas he regarded the Creature as a 'loathsome' and 'horrible'. Walton praised Frankenstein and treated his character with the utmost sympathy, displaying a deeper, soulful connection. Consequently, this results in a recount of events primarily retold in Frankenstein's point of view whereas the Creature's section within the narrative is shorter and less detailed, showing the bias and subsequent unreliability of the narrative. (I left my book at school, sorry there isn't more evidence from the text)
TOP TIP
TOP TIP
Don't forget to put your name with the post! 

# data[].attributes.body
They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the 

# data[].attributes.body
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.

# data[].attributes.body
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra

# data[].attributes.body
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 

# data[].attributes.body
to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 

# data[].attributes.body
n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.

# data[].attributes.body
he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour.

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted.

# data[].attributes.body
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein.

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted.

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences.

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding.

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).

# data[].attributes.body
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.

# data[].attributes.body
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views.

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat.

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator.

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.

# data[].attributes.body
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions?

# data[].attributes.body
re." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 


more_vert
om pg.17 "Even broken ins
om pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this adm
notes during the conversa
notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed idea
I believe that neither W
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
 I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
 Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em
 to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation 
n this padlet I would lik
 n this padlet I would like you to consider the position you take on the question: ARE WALTON AND FRANKENSTEIN RELIABLE NARRATORS? Think about what you define as reliable and explain the position you take on this argument. You must use evidence from the texts to shape your answer.
he mentions he was once a
 he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inac
Michelle
Michelle
I believe that while Walton is a reliable narrator, Frankenstein is not. For a narrator to be reliable, the recounts given by he or she has to be truthful to the extent that the emotions involved do not change the plot of the story in their favour. 

Frankenstein gives an account of his story regarding the creation but allows his biased emotions to cover the true logic of the events. He had a fixed opinion that his creation will be destructive to the human kind. On his deathbed he tells Walton that he is concerned that without him destroying his creation, the creation will ‘live to be an instrument of mischief’. In contrast, the creation confesses to Walton that ‘neither [Walton’s] nor any man’s death is needed to consummate the series of [his] being.’

Walton on the other hand, is reliable because he is only writing down what he sees and hears. He is clearly aware of when his emotions may overtake his truthfulness and warns the reader. An example of this is when he encountered the creation. He is willing to hear his side of the story and ‘when [he] called to mind what Frankenstein had said...and indignation was rekindled within [him]’, he writes this quote down to warn the reader.

GRACIE
GRACIE
I believe that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. I understand their opinions, perceptions and character traits aren't what we'd want in a narrator, but I think this is what gives the story an extra element. See, through this narration, we learn not only what they are telling us, but about them. The emotion, courage, unhappiness and arrogance of the two make for interesting views and in some parts twisted perceptions of what is happening. For example, when the Monster just wanted someone to love, someone as hideous as himself to be with, Frankenstein saw this as a threat, he didn't realise the true motivations to this need of another one of the Monster's kind. Here, we learn more about Frankenstein than we do the Monster, as we see his selfishness and cowardly acts by not giving the Creature what he wants. I believe this makes for good narration - it makes the story interesting. No one is perfect in the real world, therefore why should our narrators be perfect? In fact, Shelley stresses this, that humans aren't perfect, and doesn't the fact our narrators aren't perfect just prove this idea further? The narration teaches us what lies underneath the story while explaining the story, it proves perfection not to be true, and makes for an interesting novel. 

Sindhu
Sindhu
 
I do not think Walton and Frankenstein are completely reliable narrators as their outlook on the Creature’s actions are biased and discriminatory. They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the Creature did have human-characteristics, especially ones such as love and longing for as sense of belonging. The creature strived for acceptance into society, but his appearance constantly hindered this desire, and he was left rejected by everyone, including his own creator. Frankenstein particularly appears to disregard this, and instead emphasises on his problems and what effect the Creature’s actions have on him, rather than the other way around. Both Frankenstein and Walton narrate their side of the story to generate compassion and sympathy towards them, and this results in an unfair impression of the Creature being created and depicted. 
Ebony-Jade
Ebony-Jade
Reliable to me is to consistently recounting/performing something repetitively without changing details to influence a perspective, in this case, the readers opinion towards characters in Frankenstein. 

Frankenstein and Walton are not reliable narrators because their personalities, perspectives, bias and personal interests which could impact how the story is recounted. 

Unreliability in narration is evident between the two perspectives of Frankenstein and his Creation. Due to different perspectives, their stories have some similarities but many differences. 

In Walton's letters he mentions he was once a failed poet. This demonstrates possibility inaccurate retelling of Frankensteins biased story of his life and creation.

The fact Frankenstein is able to recite word for word the letters from Elizabeth supports why as narrators he is unreliable. Walton would not have took notes during the conversation and therefore overtime created or changed ideas based on his schemas and filling in the unknown, or changing words more common to his understanding. 

Manipulation or emphasis of events which occurred is easy to do. Throughout the novel Frankenstein may have altered the story to make others feel sorry for him or believe his opinion.

It is almost impossible to convey how someone feels. For example, when Frankenstein and the Monster/Walton and the Monster meet it is difficult to describe how the monster was feeling (unloved and separated from the rest of the world).
Georgia
Georgia
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narration is merely retelling the things that Frankenstein has told him. This makes him unreliable because at these stages he has only heard one side of the story (Frankenstein's), meaning that he has not see the whole picture and is only basing his opinions on one biased point of view.
Sophie
Sophie
The term “reliable narrator” refers to a character whose version of events is to be trusted. Within the text, I have grown to analyse this topic with two different views. 

Firstly, I believe that particularly Walton is a reliable narrator because of his ability to share emotions and share his thoughts. We are still unsure as to whether his thoughts are the truth or not. In the letters at the beginning of the novel we learn of his painful loneliness whilst on the boat. 

Walton only chooses to tell the storyline from his perspective and this means that the narration of the story may not be reliable. This shows only one side to the story and does not allow the reader to fully understand the whole story.
His letters are full of bias and this shows that Victor Frankenstein is a more reliable narrator. 

The reason that I have come to believe that Frankenstein is the most reliable narrator is because he was able to explain everything that occurred between his creation and the plot for revenge. However, often people who make bad decisions can try make themselves sound better in the eye of society to lead people to believe something different.

In conclusion, I do believe that both characters lack sympathy and show bias towards their perspectives of the novel.  The storyline we are led to believe can never been completely reliable due to the bias of either of the characters.
Erica
Erica
At first, we are mislead into believing that Walton and Frankenstein are reliable narrators. They are reliable in that they tell their stories (and others stories as well, such as the monster) with emotion. We could argue that both Walton and Frankenstein told their tales to the best of their abilities, but we don’t actually know that as we are only given a perspective of a many sided story. We don’t actually know the full story or whether Walton and Frankenstein are being truthful and honest, so can we really trust them? It is evident though that Frankenstein and Walton, in telling their stories, are biased. We, as the reader, only understand each of their singular perspectives on events. They are both written in first person, which is unreliable in itself to an extent, and it is evident that Frankenstein is biased towards his creations and so is not a reliable narrator to recount the story from his ‘monster's’ point of view. In contrast, however, Frankenstein’s tale is the least reliable. Contradictions are evident in Frankenstein’s narrative, for example when Frankenstein states to Walton, ‘Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman’, only to later say to Walton, ‘Do you share my madness?’ (Walton, Letter VI). How do we really know Frankenstein is being honest and truthful if he makes contradictions? 
Helen Xiong
Helen Xiong
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
Annie
Annie
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story. 
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could  impact the story. 

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own. 

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits.' The word consented implies reluctance while the descriptions of his own feelings demonstrate that he is in no place to empathise the creature as he is too occupied considering himself.
Ashleigh
Ashleigh
Frankenstein is a reliable narrator in the sense that he is accurately describing his experiences to the best of his ability. I believe that Frankenstein has no real motive to lie to Walton, in fact he is telling his tale in all its horror to help Walton overcome the very traits that destroyed Frankenstein. After Walton reveals his desires to conquer the land and become powerful, Frankenstein cries, "You share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught? ... let me reveal my tale ... you will dash the cup from your lips!" (p19), referring to the madness of arrogance and pride.  Furthermore, at the conclusion of his story he implores Walton to "learn [F'stein's] miseries, and to do not seek to increase [his] own" (p216). With this in mind, all of Frankenstein's comments on his story are there to emphasise but not distort the morals and fundamental elements of his tale.  While Frankenstein does refer to his creation as a daemon or monster, Frankenstein also relays (presumably truthfully) the monster's tale and their conversations - in which the monster is presented as somewhat gentle - including his plea for a companion. If he had wanted to display the creature as a complete monster, would he not have changed this to a threatening demand for a mate, as Frankenstein had originally thought? The inclusion of these details and Frankenstein's eventual realisation of his misdeeds suggests that he has told a reliable account of events, the way that he perceived them.

As for Walton, I also believe that his recollection of events is reliable. Although he can at times appear to be biased towards Frankenstein, ultimately he listens to the creation as well as Frankenstein, because for the most part he is a virtuous man - more empathetic and considerate than Frankenstein was. During their encounter, the creation remarks, "it is not thus ... yet such must be the impression conveyed to you" (p227), and Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein,  Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.
Erin
Erin
I believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators because they are both influenced by bias and arrogance. Walton, for a majority of the story, only knew Frankenstein's side of events. Due to Frankenstein's extreme bias, as a result of his conceited and cowardly attitude, he did not convey the story accurately and caused Walton's premeditated opinion of the monster as a savage. Their narration is also unreliable because they are influenced by arrogance, causing Frankenstein to have a closed mind to the monster's plea for companionship. However, Walton had an open mind to the monster and was able to convey an alternate mind set to the reader during the conclusion of the novel. Both of these narrators are unreliable in this novel because they do not accurately convey an equal novel in regards to character portrayal. 
Felicia
Felicia
I believe that Frankenstein and Walton are not fully reliable narrators as their perspectives contain bias and prejudice against the Creature's story; this allows them to put their hardships and struggles at the forefront, opposed to giving a reliable recount of events which would involve the equal consideration of other characters' perspectives. This is displayed through Walton's favouritism of Frankenstein, who Walton believed to be a 'magnificent mind' whereas he regarded the Creature as a 'loathsome' and 'horrible'. Walton praised Frankenstein and treated his character with the utmost sympathy, displaying a deeper, soulful connection. Consequently, this results in a recount of events primarily retold in Frankenstein's point of view whereas the Creature's section within the narrative is shorter and less detailed, showing the bias and subsequent unreliability of the narrative. (I left my book at school, sorry there isn't more evidence from the text)
TOP TIP
TOP TIP
Don't forget to put your name with the post! 
They do not give sympathy
They do not give sympathy or try and understand the perspective of what the Creature is trying to convey through to them. Both the accounts from Walton and Frankenstein often portray the Creature as something that is “hideous”, and they seem to overlook the fact that unlike what they perceived, the 
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
I believe that neither W
I  believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators.
I believe that Frankenstein is an unreliable narrator because he is incredibly biased in his opinions and that he believes that he has not done any wrong. He does not blame himself for the deaths of his family and friends even though it was his selfishness that lead his monster to seek revenge on him. While we, as readers, are able to get a better understanding of the monster through part 2 of the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to see his creation in any kind of positive light.
Walton is an unreliable narrator mostly due to the fact that the majority of his narra
Walton on the other hand
Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature. 
to the extent that the em

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that neither Frankenstein and Walton are reliable, but not fully reliable because their narratives involve some their bias ideas against the creature. Frankenstein’s narrative shows his revulsion against the creature, and therefore, describing the creature as this threatening monster. Frankenstein describe the creature based how he thinks of the creature not how the creature is actually like. Walton on the other hand desires for a mate that beholds the same point of view as himself, and Frankenstein matched his expectation of a mate shown by Walton's letter from pg.17 "Even broken inspirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature." Because Walton has this admiration and correspondence towards Frankenstein, he would stand more towards Frankenstein’s side where he is more critical against the creature.

# data[].attributes.body
I define reliable to mean that the retelling of the events is accurate and does not exclude important details that would change the readers perspective on the story.
Walton and Frankenstein are not reliable narrators because of their personalities, inherent biasses and intentions that could impact the story.

Firstly, regardless of how hard they try to give a balanced recount of the events, it will not be balanced. This is because they are telling the story. Only Frankenstein knows exactly how he feels and this also applies to Walton and the Monster. Even if they try their best to convey the monster's emotions, it will never be as accurate as what they can say about their own.

It is clear that if Walton and Frankenstein are telling the story, then they can manipulate events in any ways they wish to. This may be deliberate, or without noticing. I cannot trust them as a reliable sources because I have no other evidence to prove whether any of the recount is accurate (apart from the ways in which their stories correlate). I don't know how to evidence these points as to me they are commentary on the nature of second hand information, there will always be some form of bias impacting it.

Lastly when considering the character of Frankenstein (this does not apply to Walton), he does not present himself as someone that would intently listen and try (or have the ability) to empathise with the monster. Therefore, how could he accurately communicates the turmoil and hardship that the monster experiences? He can't. This is shown just before the telling of the monster's perspective when Frankenstein said that he 'consented' to listen with a 'heavy heart and depressed spirits.' The word consented implies reluctance while the descriptions of his own feelings demonstrate that he is in no place to empathise the creature as he is too occupied considering himself.

# data[].attributes.body
Frankenstein is a reliable narrator in the sense that he is accurately describing his experiences to the best of his ability. I believe that Frankenstein has no real motive to lie to Walton, in fact he is telling his tale in all its horror to help Walton overcome the very traits that destroyed Frankenstein. After Walton reveals his desires to conquer the land and become powerful, Frankenstein cries, "You share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught? ... let me reveal my tale ... you will dash the cup from your lips!" (p19), referring to the madness of arrogance and pride.  Furthermore, at the conclusion of his story he implores Walton to "learn [F'stein's] miseries, and to do not seek to increase [his] own" (p216). With this in mind, all of Frankenstein's comments on his story are there to emphasise but not distort the morals and fundamental elements of his tale.  While Frankenstein does refer to his creation as a daemon or monster, Frankenstein also relays (presumably truthfully) the monster's tale and their conversations - in which the monster is presented as somewhat gentle - including his plea for a companion. If he had wanted to display the creature as a complete monster, would he not have changed this to a threatening demand for a mate, as Frankenstein had originally thought? The inclusion of these details and Frankenstein's eventual realisation of his misdeeds suggests that he has told a reliable account of events, the way that he perceived them.

As for Walton, I also believe that his recollection of events is reliable. Although he can at times appear to be biased towards Frankenstein, ultimately he listens to the creation as well as Frankenstein, because for the most part he is a virtuous man - more empathetic and considerate than Frankenstein was. During their encounter, the creation remarks, "it is not thus ... yet such must be the impression conveyed to you" (p227), and Walton listens to the creature's short justification of his deeds, although he eventually discounts it. Additionally, Walton is shown not to be completely loyal to Frankenstein as the latter demanded that "if [the creature] should appear ... thrust your sword into his heart" (p216), which is clearly not what Walton did . Despite his relationship with Frankenstein, Walton is a reliable narrator as he is shown to be freethinking and empathetic towards both parties - he has no real reason to lie about the series of events- and is unlikely to have changed Frankenstein's story due to his profound respect for him.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that neither Walton nor Frankenstein are reliable narrators because they are both influenced by bias and arrogance. Walton, for a majority of the story, only knew Frankenstein's side of events. Due to Frankenstein's extreme bias, as a result of his conceited and cowardly attitude, he did not convey the story accurately and caused Walton's premeditated opinion of the monster as a savage. Their narration is also unreliable because they are influenced by arrogance, causing Frankenstein to have a closed mind to the monster's plea for companionship. However, Walton had an open mind to the monster and was able to convey an alternate mind set to the reader during the conclusion of the novel. Both of these narrators are unreliable in this novel because they do not accurately convey an equal novel in regards to character portrayal.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Frankenstein and Walton are not fully reliable narrators as their perspectives contain bias and prejudice against the Creature's story; this allows them to put their hardships and struggles at the forefront, opposed to giving a reliable recount of events which would involve the equal consideration of other characters' perspectives. This is displayed through Walton's favouritism of Frankenstein, who Walton believed to be a 'magnificent mind' whereas he regarded the Creature as a 'loathsome' and 'horrible'. Walton praised Frankenstein and treated his character with the utmost sympathy, displaying a deeper, soulful connection. Consequently, this results in a recount of events primarily retold in Frankenstein's point of view whereas the Creature's section within the narrative is shorter and less detailed, showing the bias and subsequent unreliability of the narrative. (I left my book at school, sorry there isn't more evidence from the text)

# data[].attributes.body
Don't forget to put your name with the post!