To what extent do you believe Frankenstein is a total condemnation of transgression?

First, highlight the key words in the title, making sure you don't miss one. Here, the "to what extent" shows us we need to argue both sides of this in our essay. Next, "total condemnation" and "transgression" should be highlighted. The word "total" is interesting - note how strongly opinionated it is, you may be able to contradict that later. Finally, it is important you know and define what transgression means - and note that it is a typical theme within the Gothic genre. Before you begin, you must plan your argument with different points for and against the statement, backed up with quotes from the novel that you can analyse. Follow the Point Evidence Analysis structure. Try to also include context surrounding the novel and its genre. For instance, in favour of the argument you might say :
Victor transgresses gender boundaries - dreaming a "new species would bless [him] as their creator", this is essentially him "giving birth" thus subverting traditional male and female roles. Because the novel was written during the 18th century, where any integration or fluidity between genders was incomprehensible and castigated, we may infer that his doing so is entirely "wrong" thus Shelley is condemning such a transgression. This is further emphasised by Shelley's reference to Victor's work as "unhallowed arts".Another point, yes the novel is a "total" condemnation of transgression evident through the way in which narrative represents the creature - in such a negative light. The creature is the very embodiment of "transgression" within the novel and because he is considered "evil" we can argue this is evidence Shelley is condemning the very act of transgression from the onset. He is referred to as "demonic" with "hair of a lustrous black". Pick apart the quotes you use and analyse them eg: hair being black is a metaphor for his iniquity physically and literally. Then conclude and ask yourself : how do the quotes I have picked support my argument? What is my conclusion?
Then you must look at how you can flip your argument and now disagree with the statement, or show an awareness of another opinion. For example:
As the plot progresses, it becomes clear that the monster is perhaps not "evil" but just incredibly vulnerable and tortured. It is noted that he “was benevolent and good [but] misery made [him] a fiend”. Shelley's alliterative and emotive language here evokes sympathy from the reader, making the creature seem human. Now - if the creature isn't "evil", then neither can he be an example of how Shelley "totally condemns transgression".Perhaps the novel is only a "partial condemnation of transgression" - Shelley's "condemnation" serves a superior purpose. Having examined the consequences of all Victor’s transgressions, it is indeniable that Shelley highlights the danger of surpassing natural boundaries and human limits; but rather than utterly condemning it she reveals how transgression has a purpose to teach others, and ultimately warns against it, educating her readers.   
Once you have shown both sides of the argument you must conclude your essay. Your response here must be final and whilst sum up what you have argued above, it must also not simply repeat your previous points. Use your line of argument to create an engaging round off to your essay:Has your argument changed?What have you learnt?Acknowledge the challenges faced in arguing the questionWhy is your argument important?Show you are answering the question.