“I entreat you to hear me before you give vent to your hatred on my devoted head. Have I not suffered enough, that you seek to increase my misery? Life, although it may only be an accumulation of anguish, is dear to me, and I will defend it. Remember, thou hast made me more powerful than thyself; my height is superior to thine, my joints more supple. But I will not be tempted to set myself in opposition to thee. I am thy creature, and I will be even mild and docile to my natural lord and king if thou wilt also perform thy part, the which thou owest me. Oh, Frankenstein, be not equitable to every other and trample upon me alone, to whom thy justice, and even thy clemency and affection, is most due. Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous” (Chapter 10).

1. This scene is in the outskirts of Arveiron. Dr. Frankenstein is out in what can only be described as the beauty of nature. in chapter 10, the author writes “…And the solemn silence of this glorious presence-chamber of imperial nature was broken only by the brawling waves or the fall of some vast fragment…These sublime and magnificent scenes afforded me the greatest consolation that I was capable of receiving.”  This setting is peaceful and relaxing as Dr. Frankenstein is away from all his troubles and from civilization, or so he thinks. Soon after, he notices something moving in the shadows and discovers that it is his creation. They both talk and in the conversation you could tell that the monster is well spoken and knows how to speak perfectly like a human being. The monster persuades Dr. Frankenstein to listen to his story oh what happened to him after he left the doctor.
2. I would compare this  scene, to the story of the Garden of Eden where all was well and pure until the sin of man forced them out of this paradise. I know it may seem a little far fetched but after you hear my analysis of it, it may come together to make sense.
3. I would associate this relationship of Frankenstein and his creation with that of farmers who create Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s). Dr. Frankenstein created his monster from the bones and flesh of dead organisms and use them to create something else. As Rousseau writes, “He forces one soil to bear the fruits of another.”
4. If i were to analyze this scene, I would focus on the hate that Dr. Frankenstein has for his creation. This scene is part of a larger scene later on where the monster tells his creator how he has been able to survive alone, Now that he is able to talk to his creator, he does so with so much respect. Viktor in this scene is taking in the beauty of nature, admiring the glacier,the valleys and mountains. He finds peace in the admiration of nature and while in this paradise, he is reminded of what happens when you mess with what nature has created. When he sees the monster he is quick to judge him and the of him as a hideous being unworthy of kindness or empathy.
5. I could apply this scene of the monster and Viktor to the theory of Rousseau where he believes that man should find a balance of all three types of education from nature, man and things. The story of Frankenstein is a story of how man defied the education of nature by giving life to an organism whose birth was not by natural causes. He did not grow naturally and therefore receive an education by nature. For Rousseau, this would mean that the subject would be “ill-educated.”
6. I would argue and say that this story of Frankenstein is a good reason of why it is wrong to go against what nature can already do. In this case we see what happens when man tries to assume the role of the teacher of nature. It is not his domain to control and must therefore let it take its course and only after nature has taught the subject can you then give him/her the teachings of man. If i were to argue against this idea i wouldn’t also say that a strict adherence to this theory would also limit the advances of the scientific community. If we were to limit ourselves and say that we must not take on the role as teacher of nature, then advances like those in prosthetic limbs or organ transplants would have never been discovered. It is because of our ability to go ahead and challenge nature, that we are able to discover something new and ingenious every time.