Thursday, April 23, 2020
Boo!
Jeffrey Jerome Cohen wrote, "The monster is born only at this metaphoric crossroads, as an embodiment of a certain cultural moment--of a time, a feeling, and a place. The monster's body quite literally incorporates fear, desire, anxiety, and fantasy (ataractic or incendiary), giving them life and an uncanny independence. The monstrous body is pure culture." (4). This quote from his first thesis very much embodied Frankenstein, particularly this remix of Frankenstein, with a higher emphasis on the physical or visual, having the text paired with illustrations. The reflection of this monstrous body, a product of "pure culture," to the human body makes me question what the human body in this story was also supposed to represent...another facet of culture? Or the same one, being a reflection? The monster in this text is in Cohen's words a product of society's fears at the time the novel was originally written in 1823--which makes me wonder, what similar fears till remained relevant for when this remix was published in the early 2000s?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, it's interesting, because in one way, Victor represents all of society's response to "other", but I think there's a way that Victor also becomes the monster - in fact, that's part of why we eschew the monsters we encounter (because they reveal the worst of us). Victor's monster emphasizes Victor's lack of compassion and understanding,
ReplyDeleteI think an interesting remix with regards to visual is the film "Edward Scissorhands," which is a whole take on the visual aspects of a monster! As a matter of fact, I saw in an interview with Johnny Depp that he really tried to inhabit the spirit of Buster Keaton in his portrayal of the monster because of the way Keaton was always able to play the innocent outsider. Pure Pathos!
ReplyDeleteThat's a great modern comparison! Edward Scissorhands definitely has that visual embodiment.
DeleteI was actually going to say something similar to Kate's response - I felt as though the "monster" was almost the physical embodiment of Victor's negative character traits. It becomes more and more clear throughout the text that Victor isn't necessarily a good person: he immediately shuns the monster right after he's created him, he doesn't speak up when he knows that his creation has killed SEVERAL people because of him, etc. While Victor becomes more of a monster, the creation seems to become more human, and so I think it's beautifully poetic that this creature, created at the hands of Victor, is so physically menacing and terrifying. He's the physical product of Victor's own character.
ReplyDeleteThis aspect of the novel reminds me a lot of Dorian Gray with Victor having to confront his inner monstrosity in a physical manifestation that not only visually reflects those negative traits but also punishes him for selfish choices. What's especially captivating about this text is how slowly Shelley unveils this truth to us. That we don't suspect to turn against our narrator until all his poor choices start adding up. And, once we see it, we can't distinguish good/bad between him and the creation.
DeleteI do see a bit of the Romantic impulse to shun the physical body in favor of the soul and the emotions in this novel. This of course isn't new territory for the Romantics; mystics around the world and throughout time have sought to privilege the spiritual over the physical. But if anything, I think the monster shows us the fallacy of this: that we can't simply shed our physical bodies and float about as disembodied souls.
ReplyDeleteWell, unless you are Yoda ("luminous beings are we, not this crude matter...")
The monster's appearance differs from what was considered normal at the time. In 1823, people that differed in appearance were looked at a certain way, Frankenstein was put into a similar category. Differences were not embraced, at all during the time period. Differences evoked fears back then, and even now in current times.
ReplyDeleteIts interesting that you question what fears we have in the 2000's vs 1823. I wonder if our fears really have changed? With a monster, or the "other" we fear the different, the change, things outside our comfort zone. In the 1820's there were fears of communism, revolution, "liberalism", intermingling of races etc. I'm not sure if our fears have totally changed that much. More so that our fears in one area have either subsided, or that we have kept the same fear but with a different object/ topic.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely along the lines of what I was thinking while writing this post. While culturally and societally a lot has changed since the nineteenth century, some of our values and concerns have unfortunately not progressed at the same rate...
DeleteI think it centers around our fears of the unknown and different, which we would have had in the 19th century as well as today. At the same time, we also have a fear of not being understood and accepted ourselves. This is why this is a phenomenal novel; it meets at the crossroads if two of our biggest and most timeless fears.
ReplyDelete