One of the things I most enjoyed about Gris Grimly's Frankenstein is that the illustrations allow the reader to see past Victor Frankenstein's limited perspective. It removes us from the mind of the first person narrator and gives us the chance to look at and assess his story from more of an outsider's point of view while simultaneously reading his take of events. The first moment this stood out to me was the irony on page 40 when Shelley describes baby William as "the most beautiful little fellow in the world" while Grimly gives us a cute but mildly repulsive blob of flesh to represent the character. Another was on page 55 because there was a distinct difference in what the two authors conveyed: Shelley described the extent Frankenstein's obsession had taken over his mind while Grimly gruesomely portrays what that obsession looked like in action. The two components work well together to grant the reader a fuller picture (ha) of the moment. It is certainly a more unique reading experience.
How do the images change the tone of the original text? Is it different than what you expected? How much would the reading experience change if Grimly had approached the project with a different artistic style? (Even his flowers have skulls on them. I love the detail, but it certainly sets the creep-factor in stone.)
Interesting observation about how the illustrations add another perspective. There are many layers here - Victor's story, the retelling of the story through Walton's letters and writings, and then Grimly's interpretation of it all. That many layers naturally adds distance between the readers and the characters, especially the monster (Victor's impression of the monster as recorded by Walton as drawn by Grimly). When Grimly depicts the monster's narrative, it brings us closer to him than perhaps the text alone ever could.
ReplyDeleteOriginally I hadn't really thought about how the illustrations were in conversation with the text as opposed to simply painting a picture of what's taking place, but I think that's a great observation and I can definitely see what you mean. While I haven't read the original text prior to this, I would imagine that the images aid readers in "getting through it" and possibly even enjoying it more. As elementary as it sounds, I think it's a good way to keep readers engaged in the story. While I feel like there is no artistic style other than Grimley's that would do Shelley's story justice, I think it would be funny if an illustrator decided to do something completely different, like the creature is just a giant gummy bear or something. However, I don't think Shelley's work should really be seen through a satirical lens, and I think that's why Grimley did such a great job in bringing this novel from the 1800s to life in a more modern (albeit creepy) context.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Kate and Kelsey above that this was a really interesting thing to note and something I hadn't yet thought about. In literature we so often think and talk about the unreliable narrator and with how the original Frankenstein is written in first-person (although altering perspectives) it is still very limiting and inherently biased. This version has allowed us to see the characters and the scenes from a possible unbiased lens, and that is something we so rarely get in stories--and is one that is especially vital in a text that has blurry moral themes such as this one. I'm definitely going to read the rest of this from a different perspective now, wow!
ReplyDeleteI think the images change how we "view" the text. A text without images provided allows us to form mental images in our head. For some readers that may be sympathetic to Victor, others that may be to the Monster. You make a good note of that with the juxtaposition of the baby description versus picture on page 40. Here with this style of text there is more assistance in developing our mental image therefore we are guided closer to the message the artist/ writer want the reader to experience. In many ways there is less room for interpretation and in many ways there are more because we can now interpret the artistic choices of the artist.
ReplyDeleteThe best way I can think to describe how I feel about how the images add to the text, is that I think the illustrations make the tone of the story louder, if you know what I mean. Like, the original story does an excellent job of setting the tone for the reader, but with the illustrations added in we are able to literally see the emotions on a deeper level than words sometimes allow, which is similar to what you mentioned about the images allowing us to move beyond Victor's limited perspective.
ReplyDeleteI think Grimly did a good job in picking that Tim Burton type of style. I do not have that much experience with the original text, but I always found the story to be creepy. If Grimly had done the book in a more realistic style, it would not have portrayed the story in the right way. The illustrations also helped to understand not just Victor and the creature's point of views but also that of Victor's family and friends.
ReplyDeleteIf we had to put a name to the "tone" of Grimly's art, what would it be? I agree that the graphic nature of this text changes the nature of the narration. I guess I'd be interested in figuring out what the "tone" of Victor's verbal narration is vs the "tone" of the images here.
ReplyDeleteI...oh gosh. I'm really bad at giving that one-word answer to tone. To describe in an unnecessary amount of words the differences in the way the two make me feel as a reader? I would say that Victor's narration comes across as more sophisticated and self-assured. He's confident in his abilities, he has the emotional maturity to explain his thought processes, and he makes it clear how much he cares for his family. Grimly's art gives off a much more bleak feeling. I think it's an accurate representation for the story, but I don't get as much of a "everything is grey, it's pouring rain, and my socks are just completely soaked" sense from the text alone.
DeleteWow! I had never really thought about the "point of view" that this book allows! I think that's a really interesting question to ask, and I think it goes along with Shelley's original intent of seeing from different point of views the people involved in the story.
ReplyDelete