 |
| Is Norman also Marion's double? Still from Psycho, Dir. by Alfred Hitchcock, Shamley, 1960. |
Wednesday, April 15, 2020
Man and Monster
While I appreciated Stephen Asma's discussion about what monsters teach us about being human, I think texts like Frankenstein (and, for the record, the film Psycho, which he also mentions) are especially meaningful from a psychoanalytic perspective. We don't have to be literary scholars to see that Victor's monster is also his double (nearly as obvious as a reading of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde), and this doubling is especially apparent in Gris Grimly's drawings. Though Grimly's Victor is gaunt - even skeletal - there are many illustrations that underscore the monstrosity of his project. Contrast Victor's face with Henry's on pages 47-50, and the disconnect between Victor and "humanness" (as represented by Henry) is evident. From the stringy, long black hair (e.g. p. 41 and 42) to the pitted eyes (e.g. p. 42 and 44) to the claw-like hands (e.g. p. 45), Victor and the monster are drawn closely enough that readers have to look twice at some pictures to know which they are seeing. Victor is himself the monster and (as we see later in the story, when the monster longs for a mate, mimicking Victor's relationship with Elizabeth), the monster is also Victor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a great observation and was something I loved about the visual aspect of this remix of the story: seeing their close resemblance, having to take that double-take, their likeness to one another was compelling and only added to the plot of the story. Reading this has really made me battle in my head if comics can sometimes better tell a story than novels? I know they're not totally comparable, but just this observation is one way that I think we got more from this story than I did when I read the novel.
ReplyDeleteI just looked back over the pages you mentioned, and I think you're exactly right about the similarities between Victor and the monster. The blurred lines between the two certainly lead to questioning who the real monster is. Another thing that I noticed is how much more often the monster smiles than Victor does. Mostly when recounting his time with the rural family, the monster is shown as having real human emotions. Victor is very rarely seen smiling. Maybe this is an allusion to who these two really are on the inside.
ReplyDelete...and why do other visual version of this story (I'm thinking of Boris Karloff, particularly, since he is the iconic image we have all come to accept as "Frankenstein's Monster") miss that doubling? Why do other versions seek to distance us from that comparison?
ReplyDeleteIt really matters when remakes of something are made. Even though Frankenstein as a story is very much about good versus evil isn't inherently black and white, and who the monster is isn't completely obvious, a lot of remakes have tried to make this story exactly that--including the 1930s film with Boris Karloff. When a lot of these remixes have come out I think they have really wanted to push the narrative that what is good versus what is evil are easily discernable. Noting at the blurred lines between who is the monster and who is not, or focusing on their similarities rather than their distances, give readers a lot more to question about real "good" people in our own society, and how they have maybe blurred their own lines into treachery.
DeleteAs I read the book, I too could see where the scientist was simply becoming the monster, and the monster was becoming the scientist. This gets into questions of where does power lie in natural science? While we humans can begin to understand nature, will we ever be able to totally understand nature, specifically the power of life? I don't think so, and I think the book becomes a parable about the RESULTS of playing with life.
ReplyDelete