frankenstein: the real monster in the dark
- paigenherbooks
- Oct 6, 2024
- 5 min read
5/5
Moody, thematically deep and very different than what I was expecting, Frankenstein by Mary Shelly delivers a gothic story diving deep into the blackish waters of creation, morality, and humanity. What really defines a monster? Can we all play God? And if we do, do we deserve to suffer the consequences of Hell?
Synopsis: Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley is a Gothic horror and science fiction novel about a scientist who creates a monster in an unorthodox experiment.
I grew up, like most I would say, believing that Frankenstein was a green, mismatched configuration of people created by a mad scientists. He’s ignorant, blood thirsty, and the embodiment of a monster. You can imagine my surprise when I started to read the novel and found all of this to be wildly untrue and excessively far from the source material. Frankenstein - first off is in reference to Victor Frankenstein the man who created the monster. The actual monster never receives a name – due to Victor being so disgusted with his own creation (more on that later) The monster, as we shall have to call him, is intelligent, he’s kind, he wants for nothing more than to belong, to be with community. Victor, his creator and master grants him none of those things – this is the plot of the novel. The two trying to live their lives where one, Victor, is holding all the cards, his creation begging for a place to belong, and Victor denying him the right.
This book is one that you could thematically talk about for eons, hence why it is still such an inspiration for so much and still read avidly today. There’s a few key themes I want to focus on though, hopefully without rambling too much.
"The Monster" Isn’t The Monster
The creature or monster (as I’ll refer to him) is “born” or created. He is instantly left alone and travels, seeking asylum somewhere. He experiences pain, hunger, the cold, pain, freight and a plethorha of other human emotions. Though through the course of his experience he also learns love, and comfort, he learns and starts to educate himself, he wishes for nothing more than to be a part of something. I took a horror class in undergrad where we went in depth on the subject of “monsters” in horror (think Frankenstein, Dracula, etc) and how in reality they were the personifications of things society thought was monstrous at the time, shoved into a “creature” that could be ogled at and disgusted with ease.
It’s easier to hate Dracula for being a vampire than openly admitting you’re homophobic. This same thought process is so evident in Frankenstein. Frankenstein is created, dare I say, to the best of Victor's ability, in the likeness of his maker. He is different yes, by design, and has to suffer the consequences of that because his maker decides to change his mind last minute. Absolutely absurd if you ask me. This rhetoric, while it may not have been Shelley’s original thesis, can apply heavily to queer studies. The fact that a maker, a creator, would make someone “wrong” on purpose for them to suffer insights that this creator, like Victor, would have to be self centered, self obsessed, even evil – the true monster. It begs the question of God and homosexuality as a sin pretty heavily, though you can equate this to anyone who “doesn’t belong” – minorities, women, etc. Christian nationalism’s list of hatred runs for miles.
It also begs the question of people and humanity. The blind man within the novel treated the creature with nothing but respect until told by others what he was. How many people do we interact with and engage with, "seem" perfectly normal. Though the minute they found out “who you really are” it would all absolve into flames. I find myself in this situation often, it’s scary, but mostly it’s idiotic and saddening…I digress.
While Frankenstein does commit a few murders, he is ultimately doing them in retaliation of something - of his maker, Victor, leaving him. He is but a child trying to find his way in the world. Victor - obviously is the true monster in the story. His want for fame, to be known, his morbid curiosity drove him to lengths that he was absolutely ready to take but decided to place the blame of his sin on his creation. To absolve himself of any wrong doing, citing that the monster itself must be evil as it is evil, holding himself to no accountability.
Revenge
Such a sweet word for something so grotesque. Revenge is a large plot within this story, with the creature doing his damnedest to force Victor to make him a companion, tracking him down and killing all who mean something to him. This is wrong and what’s so rich about this story is that the monster understands that. He knows that he is succumbing to a level of atrocity that he doesn’t want to though it is the only way he can have his maker face him. Victor is the monster and Victor’s creation is trying so desperately to enact revenge solely so he can leave his maker alone - which is Victor’s biggest wish. It is a complex relational dance the two have, once that creates a smoke screen darkness in the story. It is evident within the text that when the creature does kill it’s with a saddening madness. He doesn’t want to, he gives Victor ample time and opportunity to make right his wrong, and when Victor doesn’t, he enacts the consequences he told him he would. This makes the creature a better person than Victor already. He keeps his word where Victor falters, lies and fails time after time again. In the end, the creature doesn’t even enact the true revenge that he felt that he needed, he knew that his life consists of nothing without his maker, he knows that he is truly alone and decides his fate for himself, doing something in totality on his own but still irrevocably in connection to his creator.
Humanity
What defines a person? A soul? A set of characteristics that we all consider to not be barbaric? Is it money? Class? Status? Power? What defines a person? Shelley asks of this deeply within her story. Is Victor’s creature a person, something with consciousness, who can learn, who can feel, who can attest that he wants community, who can feel loneliness and understand he is different? Or have we decided to cast Victor’s creature as souless, much like Victor has due to him being different? One could argue that the creature doesn’t have a soul so therefore isn’t a person, not susceptible to the title of having “humanity”. Though, I would say, by being built in some fashion into Victor’s likeness and image, by being handcrafted, with ever such detail, Victor has placed a part of his soul within the creature. It is ever so important to remember, especially in these times that we are all people, all with souls, we all feel and hurt the same. It reminds us that beyond looks and what we think of people, we are all at the end of the day, people. Created.
Living.
People.
Frankenstein is again, a book I could talk about forever, with it’s rich connotations being written by a young woman, combined with it’s deviant plot and unique story structure it’s obvious why the story has stood the test of time.
Frankenstein's creation deserved a name, I would have called him Charles or Percy.
xoxo,
paige
Comments