3/6 AP English Literature Literary Argument Essay: Frankenstein
This is a real literary argument essay written by an AP student (personal details removed) and scored 3/6 by our AI grader — one of many AP English Literature essay examples in our library.
The Prompt
Many works of literature feature an unreliable narrator: they contain first-person accounts narrated by someone whose credibility or perspective is eventually thrown into question.
Either from your own reading or from the list below, choose a work of fiction in which the narrator's reliability is revealed to be in question. Then, in a well-written essay, analyze how the revelation of the narrator's questionable reliability contributes to an interpretation of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.
In your response you should do the following:
Respond to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible interpretation. Select and use evidence to support your line of reasoning. Explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning. Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.
The Essay
In frankenstein, viktor's questonable reliability is shown through his flow of ambuition, fear and hatred, contrast and bibilcal allsuions in order to show the unanswered question: What if viktor nutured his creation. The authour does this to show show people's own pride brings the doownfall for everyone. In the beginning, Viktor is ambitous with his studies in natural philisophy and seeks to make his creation. Viktor had his own expectations of forming life all on his own. Soon after his expectations are brought back to reailty as he realises the monster he had made. That confident ambution quickly turned into fear. If Viktor was a nuturing creator to the monster, the monster would've been better off; still hated, but the monster wouldn't had gone down the dark path of destruction. Instead, viktor fled from his creation leaving it to fend and understand for itself allowing the nature of broken humanity to teach it its uglyness and how humanity fears what they do not understand. Viktor's own prideful goals lead to monster's fall of innocence, and his families demises. The author also uses biblical allusions to show what life could've been for the monster if vitkor was a better creator. The monster refers back to God and Adam and how God gave Adam everything, while the monster was given nothing. The author uses these biblical allsuions and contrast of God and Adam and Viktor and the monster to show what viktor could've given the monster but was unable to. The author constasts adam and the monster. Both fallen creations, but one had a creature willing to redeem him. The author contrast God and viktor. Both are creators of their creation, but one is gracious and kind, while other ran in fear of its fearfully ambution. The author uses this comparsion to show that if viktor was willing to be kind to the monster like God was to adam, the monster would've been better.
Score Breakdown
Thesis (1/1)
Evidence & Commentary (2/4)
Sophistication (0/1)
What This Essay Gets Right
The thesis takes on the prompt's key idea directly, naming Victor's "questonable reliability," and it ends on an interpretation of the novel, that "people's own pride brings the doownfall for everyone." Both body paragraphs follow from it, the first through the "flow of ambuition, fear and hatred" and the second through the "bibilcal allsuions." The first body paragraph tracks a real turn in Victor's story. The line "That confident ambution quickly turned into fear." marks the moment his plans meet the creature he has made, and the paragraph follows that fear to his flight and to "his families demises." The second body paragraph brings in the creature's comparison of himself to Adam, noting that "God gave Adam everything, while the monster was given nothing." Its best line, "Both fallen creations, but one had a creature willing to redeem him," sets the creature beside Adam and raises the question of who gets redeemed.
What Went Wrong (And How to Avoid It)
Both body paragraphs return to the same counterfactual. The first says "If Viktor was a nuturing creator to the monster, the monster would've been better off," and the second says the allusions show "what viktor could've given the monster but was unable to." Neither paragraph quotes the novel, and neither explains how Victor's telling of events shapes what a reader believes, which is the question the prompt asks. That repeated point, with no line of reasoning about reliability, is why Evidence and Commentary earned 2 of 4. The thesis has the same drift. It names reliability, but its second sentence turns to a general moral about pride that never comes back to how Victor narrates. The essay's most promising idea, the redemption contrast between the creature and Adam, gets a single sentence. Developed across both paragraphs, with the creature's account set against Victor's, that contrast is the one move that could have reached sophistication.
Ready to improve your own essay? Grade your AP English Literature essay free with AI.
