How can the creature be considered as 'the other' in Frankenstein?

I think that the creature can be considered "the other" in
a couple of ways.  If we understand "the other" to be "different," it helps in our
understanding:

readability="6">

[The Other] has been used in social science to
understand the processes by which societies and groups exclude 'Others' whom they want
to subordinate or who do not fit into their
society.

Indeed, the monster
fits such a criteria.  Initially, he is rejected by Frankenstein because of his hideous
state.  The monster is rejected by Victor because he does not fit into his own
configuration.  When Victor sought to create life and regenerate it, his pursuit was
done in accordance to his own subjectivity.  Simply put, the monster did not fit this
vision.  In the exclusion through rejection and the eventual demonizing, the monster
represents "the other."  Additionally, I would say that Victor's rejection of the
monster's pleas to create a companion further reflects "the other" because it shows that
Victor refuses to create a social realm whereby the monster can find some level of
social acceptance.  Victor claims to have realized the folly of his error.  While this
might be true and valid, his refusal to create a realm of social solidarity and
cohesiveness for the monster is one where "the other" is evident, relegated to the
outside and never to be reconciled with the self.