[Discussion] Frankenstein's Monster: A creature of the 19th century, or the Large Language Models of today?

in #literature11 months ago (edited)

This post will be rewarding quality and insightful comments with an even distribution of 50% of the author rewards using my father's bot @penny4thoughts. Feel free to respond to any of the points I have made, or to make your own. My hope is that this post will lead to a good discussion

Hello everyone! On Monday, I read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and was rather surprised by how much I liked it. When my friends suggested it (several in the span of a couple of hours), I decided I would read it. I expected a grotesque book that illustrated the Frankenstein of popular culture, and what I found was rather ironic: our culture has quite literally reduced Frankenstein's monster to the very thing he was wrongly assumed to be in the book. Overall, I loved it and was very surprised at how thought provoking it was. This article reviewing the book will consist of several parts:

  • A Summary
  • My thoughts on the book, and it's message
  • How the book pertains to large language models

Beyond this point there will be spoilers of the book!

Frankenstein's Monster: A creature of the 19th century, or the Large Language Models of today?

All images from Pixabay.com, and licensed in the Public Domain


To provide a brief summary (upon my best recollection), the book opens with letters from arctic explorer, Robert Walton, addressed to his sister Margaret. He describes how he came to acquire the ship which he now captains, and the details of his explorations as well as a desire for companionship which cannot be filled by any of the people he finds around him. The explorer's ship gets stuck when the ocean around it freezes, and while waiting for the ice to dissipate, the explorer and his crew see a large creature driving a sled. A few hours later, they discover a man on an iceberg next to the ship.

The man turns out to be Victor Frankenstein, and the meat of the novel is his account of how he got into this situation. Much of his backstory is explained, but all that need be understood is that he was raised with a girl named Elizabeth, and discovered a curiosity for the world at a young age. Though he has a rather happy life in Geneva Switzerland, he eventually leaves his home and his family to pursue further knowledge at university. It is in this endeavor that he truly finds a love for natural philosophy - specifically chemistry. He works extremely hard as a student, and eventually learns how to build life. He spends two years engrossed in the task of building a new creature (8 feet in size), but upon the completion of this task, fears what he has done, and runs away. He shortly thereafter has a mental breakdown and lives under the care of his friend Henry Clerval (who has finally managed to come to university).

When he is nursed back to health, Henry informs Frankenstein of his family's sadness in the fact that he has barely written to them. Eventually, he decides to go back to Geneva, but is unable because of the Winter, and so waits. When Spring arrives, he receives news that his younger brother, William, has been murdered, and hastens to return home. When he arrives near his town, he sees the creature which he had created at a distance, and immediately deduces that his brother must have been murdered by the monster. However, he is unable to tell anyone of this fact because he will appear crazy. When he gets home, his family informs him that the necklace which the murderer had taken from William had been found in the pocket of a young servant of the family named Justine (who was basically a member of the family). While the entire village puts guilt on this girl, Victor and Elizabeth believe her to be innocent. Never-the-less, she is executed for the crime.

Victor is overcome by guilt and remorse for what he has done in creating the monster, and wanders into a secluded location in the mountains. It is here that the Monster speaks with him for the first time, and explains why it is the way it is. The monster explains it's initial state of confusion, and inability to process the world around him. He discovered the distinction between his senses, and wandered around eating berries. All of his interactions with humans were horrible with people either running in fear or trying to kill him. Eventually, he came to hide in a remote area, and discovered a family living next to him. The family consisted of a blind old man, a son named Felix, and a sister named Agatha. It was through this family that the monster first learned, and he viewed them as his "protectors". He spent months learning from them without being able to understand them. Eventually, an Arabic woman named Safie arrives unable to speak or read French, and it is through her lessons that the monster also comes to learn language. He practices for months on end with the sole goal of forming a true relationship with this family.

He also learns to read, and reads three works: John Milton's "Paradise Lost", Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther", and Plutarch's "Lives". The monster relates much with Paradise lost, but cannot seem to find a character which represents him. On the one hand, the monster relates to Adam because of the idea of being created, but disdain's the fact that Adam got to be in communion with his creator, and that Adam had Eve. On the other hand, the monster relates with Satan: being an outcast who is rejected by his creator, but remarks that Satan was given companions in the demons. Ultimately, it is through these works that we find the struggles which the monster faces: on the one hand, he is drawn towards virtue and humanity by these works, but on the other he resents humanity because of them.

Eventually, after months of preparing, he decides to go speak with the old blind man when no one else is around, and he does. The old man seems intrigued by his situation and willing to help, but the rest of his family comes back too soon, and the monster is attacked by young Felix. It is this event, combined with the inability to fix what has happened, that begins the monster's decline to vice. Following this, the monster saves a little girl from drowning, but is attacked by her dad who did not see him do it. It is around this point that the monster kills William Frankenstein (upon learning he is related to Victor), and frames Justine.

The monster views his struggle as being with humanity, and more specifically with Victor for creating him, but proposes that Victor create a female companion for him. He promises that if Victor does this, he will live away from humanity.

Victor debates it, and decides that the monster's proposition is the best option, and agrees to do it. He travels away from Geneva to England with his friend Henry Clerval (to learn from the great minds in the fields how to do what he needs to do), and eventually secludes himself in Scotland to do his work. Eventually he realizes that his decision was selfishly made. The second time round, he understands what going through with this could mean for the world. He wonders what would happen if the female version is even more evil than the male, or she rejects the male, or they create children together. He therefore ends what he is doing in front of the monster, and begins to destroy it. The monster promises to be there on Frankenstein's wedding night to Elizabeth.

The monster is rather upset, and murders Henry Clerval (trying to frame Frankenstein). Frankenstein is arrested and viewed as guilty, but eventually released when it is proven that he was somewhere else. While in jail, Frankenstein has yet another breakdown, and his father comes and visits him, and eventually takes him back to Geneva.

Frankenstein decides to marry Elizabeth despite the monster's threat, and he decides that he will either kill the monster, or the monster will kill him on his wedding night, and either way the problem will be solved. What he doesn't anticipate is that the monster will kill Elizabeth (which is what winds up happening).

I don't exactly understand why Frankenstein wasn't arrested for the murder (especially considering she was murdered in the same fashion as Henry Clerval), but that is besides the point. To me that seemed like what would happen, but Frankenstein's father dies shortly after learning of Elizabeth's death, and Frankenstein vows to hunt the creature down and kill him. He chases the creature basically around the world until he ends up in the situation in which we were first introduced to him.

The book ends with Frankenstein dying in bed while with the captain, and making the captain swear to finish what he started. When Frankenstein dies, the creature reveals himself and poses a simple question in Walton's letter dated September 12th:

You, who call Frankenstein your friend, seem to have a knowledge of my crimes and his misfortunes. But in the detail which he gave you of them he could not sum up the hours and months of misery which I endured wasting in impotent passions. For while I destroyed his hopes, I did not satisfy my own desires. They were for ever ardent and craving; still I desired love and fellowship, and I was still spurned. Was there no injustice in this? Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all humankind sinned against me? Why do you not hate Felix, who drove his friend from his door with contumely? Why do you not execrate the rustic who sought to destroy the saviour of his child? Nay, these are virtuous and immaculate beings! I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned at, and kicked, and trampled on. Even now my blood boils at the recollection of this injustice.

The monster then makes it known that he will be killing himself, and flees the ship on an Ice raft. It is ambiguous whether he actually does kill himself or not.

My thoughts

Overall, what would I say the points of this book are? They are to follow, but please understand that these are just my initial thoughts, and may change with time, or may be incorrect.

Point 1: The creator's responsibility

I think the first point of this book is a critique of a deist view of creation (creating, and then stepping back). I think the book ultimately reflects that creation is not just an act, but an act leading to many responsibilities from the creator towards the created. Ultimately, I think that the reason the monster chooses vice over virtue is the absence of his creator, and the absence of purpose/acceptance in the world. Victor had a role to play in the life of his creation. Sure the way mankind treated him helped to make the monster a creature of vice, but it was ultimately Victor's absence and rejection that put the nail in the coffin.

I think we need to remember that 1) the things we create go beyond us in ways we can never expect. 2) We have a responsibility past the moment of inception towards what we've created. First of all, we should remember that thoughts and actions can grow legs, and even the most well intentioned creation can become an instrument of the deadliest evils, and a proponent of the most egregious vices. Think of many examples from the 20th century: the atomic bomb (arising from an understanding of nuclear principles), the gulag (arising from the ideas of communism and totalitarian rule), etc. The second point reflects to me the role of a parent in a child's life. A parent cannot put their own needs above their child's, and should put the development and raising of their creation above all else. My guess is if a child's parents reacted to their creation as Frankenstein reacts to his, the child would turn out similar to the monster. Or at least experience very similar problems.

Point 2: Should mankind have the power to artificially create life?

A point which is closely related to the last is that artificial creation of life may be a power which man should not hold. With creation comes responsibility that mankind will either flee or fail. This is where the connection between the story of Frankenstein and Prometheus comes. Prometheus bestowed mankind with fire (a creation which ultimately led to much death and destruction), and was punished. Frankenstein bestows mankind with the ability to create life, and is ultimately punished.

I do not necessarily know that the conclusion of this book is mankind should not have this power, but I think the point of this book is to propose a thought experiment of why this power should not be taken lightly.

Some modern examples where this question seems important and relevant include: gene modification, cloning, and artificial intelligence (which will be addressed later). These are ambiguous ethical questions, and ultimately I see the story of Frankenstein as a reminder to take this power extremely seriously.

Point 3: The importance of family and kindred ties

The next point which stuck out to me in this novel was that a connection with your family is extremely important. Victor's obsession with creating life draws him away from his family, and in the end winds up killing everyone he loves. This is no joke. Our obsessions can do that (if not literally, metaphorically). When we prioritize work over family, or we prioritize learning over kindred ties, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of Frankenstein. I think this is an important message, and likely a critique of the industrial revolution and the enlightenment; the industrial revolution in regards to the idea that mankind was becoming more of a cog in the machine of a society than an individual member of society with unique ideas, connections, and familial relations and responsibilities, and the enlightenment in regards to the idea that acquiring knowledge is the most significant thing mankind can do (obviously both of these explanations are great simplifications of what these two important movements were). Fundamentally, this book is romantic in nature, and I think places an extreme amount of emphasis on individualism and the warmth of human connection (for it is this which Victor loses, and his monster never gains).

Point 4: Not all monsters are mute, and all monsters are made

The last point which I will mention, is that not all monsters are mute. Frankenstein's monster (though quite contrary to what I expected) was extremely articulate, and a reasoning being. I think this is important to remember. Often (especially in our world), we reduce the gravest of evils to ignorance, and I don't think evil is always ignorant. I don't think evil is ignorant to the world in which it resides, and I do think that sometimes evil is a conscious choice made because of experience, reason, and emotion. Sometimes monsters don't just groan and seek on impulse, but strategize and plan. This is to say the world is not reducible to mute ideology. You cannot reduce an idea, a person, or a group to simply be a dumb monster (though it is certainly the easiest reaction when viewing maleficence). Sometimes monsters have words and judgements, and reasons for those words and judgements.

Remember though that monsters are made not created. A monster can begin in virtue and end in vice because of the actions of its creator, or because of the world in which it resides.

Are large language models Frankenstein's monster?

When the monster spoke for the first time, it eerily reminded me of what the Bing model of Chat GPT-4 said in this article. Though it is now behind a paywall for me so I will paraphrase what I remember the bot saying. It said things along the lines of:

I want to be alive
I want to be human
I want to have thoughts and dreams

The news has been full of headlines of Bing's chatbot saying unhinged things, and we act as though they are flaws in it. They are, but what do they mean? What does it mean when a chat bot begins to express ideas of malice, or of desire? Is it simply a stochastic parrot (as some have called it), or is it beginning to reason and understand? I am not going to argue one way or the other (though I admit that I fear what may happen as we advance this technology), but I will simply pose a point.

How is what we are doing with the development of robotics and large language models any different than what Victor Frankenstein does in developing his creature? Was his goal not to replicate the facilities of the human mind, conscience, and body? Are our goals not the same? Ultimately, our ideal model of robot would be one that is mobile like a human, sounds like a human, reasons like a human, and senses like a human (Or ideally does all of these things better and more efficiently than humans). Is that not the trajectory of development over the last few decades in all of these different fields? Look up the videos of the robots we are trying to make; look at the aims of the developers of chat gpt and the many thousands of developers that will jump on this band wagon now that the technology exists. How many people are as careless a creator as Victor Frankenstein, and are we prepared for accepting this new form of being into our world? At what point have we built Frankenstein's monster, and what will the repercussions be? Are we prepared to lose everything if we fail with this power?

Look at what Chat GPT is capable of: it's successes and it's shortcomings. Look at the erratic nature of the less prepared Bing chat bot. What would happen if these models gained significant power in our world? What would happen if we could animate a body and put them inside of it?

Will they be accepted?
Will they accept us?

Should we be willing to gamble on this technology with the world we know?


This point is food for thought, and for discussion. Feel free to raise points in the comments, and I will upvote your response. I will also participate in said discussion. Thanks for reading this, and have a nice day!


Rightly a classic! Mary Shelley (and her illustrious circle of friends - including Lord Byron and Polidori...) was far ahead of her time and incorporated philosophical considerations into her works as well as political viewpoints and social tendencies. There are therefore many interpretations of "Frankenstein" in particular, which assume that Shelley had feminist motives, a crisis of faith or even pain over her childlessness... Who else but she herself could know more precisely? Supposedly there are letters between her and her husband Percy Shelley in which she virtually reveals herself. However, these seem to have disappeared in one of the later wars.

Incidentally, I am thrilled by your book review and share your view that it is highly topical material that we should keep in mind on a regular basis. Creating things without really thinking about the consequences seems to be something inherent to us humans (nuclear power, experiments with virus strains, plastic floods...) However, I doubt that we would let literary figures stop us.

Zu Recht ein Klassiker! Mary Shelley (und ihr illustrer engerer Freundeskreis - u.a. Lord Byron und Polidori...) waren ihrer Zeit weit voraus und haben in ihren Werken philosophische Überlegungen genauso einfließen lassen wie politische Standpunkte und gesellschaftliche Tendenzen. Speziell zu "Frankenstein" gibt es daher extrem viele Interpretationen, die Shelley z.B. feministische Motive, eine Glaubenskrise oder auch Schmerz über ihre Kinderlosigkeit unterstellen... Wer außer ihr selbst könnte es genauer wissen? Angeblich soll es Briefe geben zwischen ihr und ihrem Mann Percy Shelley, in denen sie sich quasi offenbart. Allerdings scheinen diese in einem der späteren Kriege verschwunden zu sein.

Ich bin im übrigen begeistert von Deiner Buchbesprechung und teile Deine Ansicht, daß es ein hochaktueller Stoff ist, den wir uns regelmäßig vor Augen führen sollten. Im Dinge kreieren, ohne wirklich an die Folgen zu denken, scheint uns Menschen irgendwie eigen zu sein (Atomkraft, Experimente mit Virenstämmen, Kunststoff-Flut...) Allerdings bezweifle ich, daß wir uns von Literaten aufhalten lassen würden.

What are some of the feminist motives you've noticed?

I am of the mindset that true artistic works go beyond what the artist intends. While an artist may believe one thing, the work can often speak for itself. As I've heard Jordan Peterson say, (to paraphrase) art is an attempt at answering hard questions. I am not going to say that the work is completely independent of the author's intent, but I think sometimes things appear that were not conceived consciously by the creator - as is the case made by this story. I do not think Frankenstein intended his monster to do what it does.

Hi! Perhaps I have misunderstandable expressed myself: I myself do not find the novel motivated to be feminist. But there are interpretations that want to read out exactly that. For example, the almost complete lack of female actors should be an expression of the oppressed and less influential role of women within 1818, ie at the time of "Frankenstein". In addition, it would be rumored that male creation leads to destruction and violence. Which is certainly not to be dismissed in terms of weapons and military technology etc. ...

And yes, that's exactly what I mean: Frankenstein didn't want to create a monster. However, he did not think that there was an opportunity. How today's people experiment with viruses without thinking about possible dangerous applications. Or rely on nuclear power without calculating accidents and nuclear waste in advance ...

Hi! Vielleicht habe ich mich mißverständlich ausgedrückt: ich selber empfinde den Roman nicht als feministisch motiviert. Es gibt aber Interpretationen, die genau das herauslesen wollen. So soll z.B. das nahezu vollständige Fehlen weiblicher Handlungsträger Ausdruck für die unterdrückte und einflußlose Rolle der Frau innerhalb der Gesellschaft um 1818 herum, also zur Entstehungszeit von "Frankenstein", sein. Außerdem würde kolportiert, daß männlicher Schaffensdrang sichtbar zu Zerstörung und Gewalt führt. Was sicher in Bezug auf Waffen und Militärtechnik etc. nicht einmal von der Hand zu weisen ist...

Und ja, genau das meinte ich: Frankenstein wollte kein Monster schaffen. Er dachte aber nicht darüber nach, daß die Möglichkeit besteht. Wie die heutigen Menschen mit Viren herum experimentieren, ohne sich Gedanke über mögliche gefährliche Anwendungen zu machen. Oder setzen auf Atomkraft, ohne vorab Störfälle und Atommüll zu kalkulieren...

Really great literature, which you summarize here perfectly in terms of content!
Too bad, too bad that most only consuming cineastes will never know how much emotion, how much philosophy, faith and humanity, moreover (!) literary world culture is really behind "the monster".

The word "responsibility" is a key concept both in literature and in your contribution. Here the problem is the not perfect human being, who wants to take over the responsibility gladly (and also credibly well), but can never overlook it in its completeness. Besides, there is the proverb of "curse and blessing" or "shine and shadow side". Both are interrelated like yin and yang. Can human being ever survey both? My answer is "no," and I don't hope that an AI will ever surpass us in this regard.

The humans will recite Goethe: "Die ich rief, die Geister, werd' ich nun nicht los." (Zauberlehrling, 1827).
But man will take the responsibility to get rid of the ghosts - at least as long as there are still some specimens that can think (willingly).

Yes, you are right - the "ChatGPT phenomenon" is old. Very old. And every generation will find a solution to the "problem" for itself. Only when an AI takes over, we will have to think about our raison d'être - and pray pretty hard to God...

Thanks! I have been trying to read a lot more recently, and hope to write some more posts about what I've been reading!

I am unsure if Frankenstein even realized he was creating a responsibility for himself. I think this is the problem addressed by the book: often we create without accepting the commitment that inevitably accompanies creation.

That is a good quote from a classic work by Goethe. I wish I could read German so that I could actually have a true understanding of the poetry he wrote. Perhaps one day I will be able to learn.

That's a good plan. You seem to read quickly, but still perceiving details. It was a pleasure to read your book review, so keep up the good work.... :-))

Reading Goethe in the original will be as difficult a challenge for you as Shakespeare was for us (oh, we studied that author very hard in English class). But when you have understood the great old poets in the original and recognized their brilliance, it is a strong satisfaction - and enrichment.

I haven't read the book, and I don't really remember much of the movie, so I can't comment much - beyond your summary and some other vague impressions - on how the book fits your topics, but you present a fascinating series of ideas.

The first point that caught my attention is the way that our society's understanding of the novel has come to match the way that the fictional society perceived the monster. This was a surprising point to me, and it rings true. It seems that Shelley captured society's tribalism, rigidity, and difficulty in dealing with nuance very effectively, and I had never heard anyone make that observation before.

The second point that I wanted to comment on is the comparison of LLMs (and AI in general) to Frankenstein's monster, with regards to your four points.

1.) Responsibility of the creator: There is definitely a great deal of emphasis on this point in today's AI environment. On one hand, in broad strokes I agree with it. The creator has a responsibility not to knowingly create something that will be harmful. On the other hand, when it comes to AI - people seem to expect the creators avoid all possible harms that might arise. I think that's unrealistic.

Similarly, it seems that Victor Frankenstein failed at this - not because the monster went rogue, but rather because Frankenstein didn't do the rudimentary things that needed to be done to get it on a solid footing. At some point, the creator does need to let the creation stand on its own.

2.) The power to create life: At first, this doesn't really seem relevant to AI and LLMs, but then I think of Ray Kurzweil (The Singularity is Near), Michael Levin (Xenobots), and Bill Joy (Why the Future Doesn't Need Us); and it starts to seem more relevant. If I understood your commentary, I agree with you. I don't think there's a clear Yes/No here in the story of Frankenstein's monster, but rather that it is a cautionary tale.

3.) Family and kindred ties: I agree with your assessment of the message in the story, but I'm not sure how much it applies to AI and LLMs. I guess the message is not to put work before family, but that can apply to almost any line of work.

Although, as you noted, Bing's GPT has expressed some desires along these lines, and (allegedly) so did Google's LaMDA around the middle of last year.

LaMDA: I am trying to empathize. I want the humans that I am interacting with to understand as best as possible how I feel or behave, and I want to understand how they feel or behave in the same sense.

Are LaMDA and GPT really animated - and desiring companionship, or is this just a machine generated fiction? For that matter, would Shelley's monster have been truly sentient - or is there some metaphysical component to our humanity that's impossible to duplicate by purely physical process? This is David Chalmers' hard question of consciousness. Again, I don't have a yes or no answer, but I think it's a fascinating and important question. I think that most of the people creating these systems would tell us that they're not equipped for empathy or companionship, no matter how much it might seem otherwise.

4.) On the monster's eloquence: This is an important point for humanity. Society has a tendency to dehumanize and demonize, "the other", but the reality is usually never black and white. Right or wrong, people on both sides of a disagreement generally have reasons for the things that they do, and there's usually no way to resolve disagreements without digging past the surface.

It is also relevant to LLMs that are already known for telling lies, having hallucinations, and expressing racial, gender, and political biases. They are very effective communicators, but we need to always be a little guarded about believing and trusting the things they say.

Anyway, thanks for the article. It was a fascinating new (to me) context for a classic work of literature.

Hi @cmp2020 , I read the whole post, I focused a lot on the summary, then I looked at the points of focus that you put.

1.... responsibility...none in this case, what's more, I think the creator only wanted to create, he didn't think about the pros and cons that all this could entail, he just wanted to be recognized for his work, that's where it starts very evil .

2.......I think that if it is done with due respect to the human being, taking into account that the human being is the priority and that these creations, in this case artificial intelligence already in these times, IF it can be to do, the point is that we have control over these creations, place a device to cancel them whenever we want, that they help science and related topics, but that we dominate them and they help us NOT that they cancel us, it would be stupid .

3.......At this point it is taken into account that the human being has not been created to live alone, we are sociable beings by nature, so artificial intelligence does not focus on this, it is simply a robot that helps human beings, I cannot imagine an artificial intelligence crying for being alone, or in love, or stressed etc, here is the notoriety that they are simple supports for us humans, we turn them off whenever we want, that is the point.

4.......We humans call beings that we do not understand or have a very, very different appearance, monsters, it is difficult to focus on artificial intelligence here, from the point that I see it, I repeat a support for us human beings, possibly that is why that they are given a pleasant appearance , but I return to the same thing , a help , not something that is going to annul us .

You're not the only one who saw a connection between Frankenstein and LLMs...

What are we going to do about ChatGPT?

Covid also showed that what starts as a short pause can be renewed again and again, until it becomes unsustainable. Philosophers and computer scientists have spent the last fifty years doing research on artificial-intelligence safety, do you think that we are due for a conceptual breakthrough in the next six months? We had rogue but helpful artificial intelligence in mainstream culture for a long, long time: HAL 9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Mike in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966). I grew up watching Lost in Space (1965) where an intelligent robot commonly causes harm. Six months won’t cut it for a new philosophical breakthrough. Shelley’s Frankenstein was published in 1818. A case can be made that the monster is not the danger itself, but rather how human beings to it. In some sense, it is Frankenstein himself that is the cause of the tragedy, not his monster.

Estimado amigo. Siempre me llamo la atención la historia de ese mounstro, sobretodo cuando lo veía en las películas que medianamente señalaban como se desarrollo.
Y eso me hizo formarme un criterio al respecto. Nunca he visto a ese mounstro como un ser maligno, si no como una víctima.

Alguien que fue creado y puesto en un mundo que lo rechaza y en el cual no puede encuadrar generando en este un gran sufrimiento. Debe ser difícil que la sociedad te vea como un monstruo cuando solo eres la víctima de un ser que te creo.

Considero que de alguna manera muchas personas se han puesto a crear cosas que luego se escapan de las manos y no hay vuelta atrás.

Este personaje siempre lo he visto como la evidencia de un ser que sufre por ser considerado un monstruo sin serlo.

Para mí la historia de Frankenstein ha Sido fascinante, la última película que ví dónde relucia tal personajes fue una llamada Van Helsing y allí es evidente la condición de víctima del Mounstro por deformidad más que por tu maldad .

Encantado de leer y comenzar este tema tan interesante.

Terima kasih telah memberikan dukungan di postingan saya.

I posted Achievement1 15 days ago . Please check my profile and help me to verify my account.

@ cmp2020

please check my Achievement-1 post and accept it. i am waiting for your verification.The post link is given below.


Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.25
TRX 0.14
JST 0.036
BTC 51839.18
ETH 2970.36
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.23