The Sun tried to attack 'snowflake' millennials and it backfired, badly

The Sun has unwittingly created a monster mess on Twitter.

The newspaper slammed university students for their understanding of classic literature in a seemingly-outraged article entitled 'Snowflake students claim Frankenstein's monster was 'misunderstood' - and is in fact a VICTIM'.

In the piece, The Sun appears to roll its eyes at "snowflake" students who see the monster in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein – which is created by the scientist Victor Frankenstein – as a "misunderstood victim with feelings".

But all those snowflakes came together in an avalanche on Twitter to kindly pointed out that this is actually the main point of the book: the true monster of the story is Frankenstein himself, as the "modern Prometheus" - along with man's ruthless pursuit of knowledge, oppression, and the male ego.

If you haven't read the novel, this is a little like getting angry with people who think that Animal Farm is about more than a barnyard.

People didn't hold back on Twitter.

Some were impressed the newspaper didn't fall into a common trap.

And it seems that The Sun isn't the only publication that might have struggled with the book.

The Head of PR for The Sun, Andy Silvester, told indy100:

We’re delighted that our article has turned the spotlight on this classic of literature. The gothic tragedy opens up serious questions around whether or not Frankenstein’s Monster is a creature of pure evil or a product of the environment from which he comes – and, of course, the motives of his creator.

It’s worth remembering that a character reanimated from corpses was nothing if not a terrifying story to 19^th century audiences; contemporary reviews of the book paint it as a horror of some proportion.

Though we come to understand that society’s rejection of the monster has led him down a path to unimaginable anger, can he truly be absolved of agency entirely? He does, after all, read and comprehend Milton – can a character so obviously intelligent be given carte blanche for his own actions simply because society has shunned him, or does he have to carry the blame for his own behaviour?

Our story simply reflects that with time, more and more people have begun to see the character not as a terror to be feared but find his actions to be a result of the unimaginable horror from which he has been created and the societal forces around him. 

If our story leads people to pick up the book one more time then we’re thrilled.

The Times ran a similar story, entitled 'Frankenstein’s monster? He was stitched up, say millennials' on 5 March.

More: Some people can't handle the fact that the earliest man in Britain had dark skin