Hobbes/Rousseau vs. Shelly

Does Mary Shelly's Frankenstein confirm or disconfirm Rousseau's "State of Nature,"/Hobbes' "State of War?"

I personally believe that Shelly's monster coincides more directly with Rousseau's "State of Nature." Rousseau believed that in a state of nature man was generally peaceful and loving. However in this modern world people generally contradict this natural state, and this corruption of man is shown explicitly in Mary Shelly’s monster. The monster, at least according to him, began his life as a peaceful loving creature who just wanted to be accepted in society. People all desire love and companionship and when he was treated with hostility he reacted aversely and began to wreak havoc on society in order to get his way. The violence he exudes however strongly corresponds with Hobbes' "State of War." Hobbes viewed man as savage beasts that will attack each other to ensure their own survival and prosperity. The latter part of the Shelly's story strongly reflects Hobbes' ideology, so in a way it is difficult to determine which aspect the monster embodies. I am going to have to go with Rousseau because he understands that man can become corrupted. I think all people are born with god intentions; it is the experiences in life that shape who they are.