 |
| Gris Grimly's final panel |
For being such a standard staple in the pantheon of monster stories, the ending of Frankenstein did not feel at all like what I expected from the genre. I believe it was under Cohen’s sixth thesis that he said something to the extent that, no matter how much we might envy a monster’s freedom, we understand that they have to be destroyed before the story can conclude. And, yes, the creature does go off to die alone, but it is not a victorious moment by any means. It just leaves the reader with a distinct feeling of sadness for all the characters involved. By the end, we attribute so much humanity to the creature, how many of us feel comfortable even labelling him as a monster?
While I understand that cultural perspectives play a lot into the development of monsters, I attribute the agenda of Shelley’s novel to be more about compassion and accepting that there can be a blurriness between right and wrong. Not at all what a modern audience associates with monsters. In my reading experience, I was not aware of the monster representing any “other” or exhibiting socially condemned behaviors (with the exception of murder, of course) like how Cohen describes in his fourth and fifth theories.
If anything, I would say the strategy behind the creature’s use of language could lend itself to a nasty subconscious takeaway: that it is okay to perceive those who don’t speak our language as inferiors. Now. That is terrible. And I don’t think it’s the main message of Frankenstein by any means. But many of us don’t attribute humanity to the creature until after he speaks so eloquently, so it is a possible cultural prejudice that slid into the design of this monster.
Overall, however, Frankenstein doesn’t fit the script of monstrous as much as I had anticipated.
That's a very interesting take you have with regards to the use of language! I wonder what was happening culturally in England at the time of writing? Perhaps Irish? Is this the reason that Victor ends up in Ireland for part of the story? I'm just searching here, and I don't have a history book right in front of me, but I think it would be an interesting look!
ReplyDeleteI definitely had a similar reading experience that you did as well - this was my first exposure to Shelley's novel and I was also surprised at the humanity of the creation. I think Frankenstein turned the creature into a monster with his own actions and judgment; the creature wasn't "born" as a monstrous being. I think your theory on language is interesting, and it's something I hadn't considered. The fact that the creation does speak so eloquently certainly helps his case, I think, because he's able to express his thoughts and feelings in a very "human" way, which makes it easier to feel sympathetic towards him. I know I certainly wasn't expecting him to be able to speak, much less as well as he did, because I was used to the stereotypical monster we wrongly refer to as Frankenstein.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that the job of monsters (as I mentioned last week) is to show us what it means to be human. And language is a BIG part of that. I don't think it has to be OUR language. Most of us (well, of course, not crappy racists and people who believe in "Anglo-Saxon" purity and that kind of bullshit) don't see other languages as inferior, but we do recognize a difference between human language and animal communication, no matter how much we love our pets. So the monster's eloquence definitely is a turning point for us in accepting his humanity.
ReplyDeleteHis language certainly helps to solidify him as a well-rounded character, with thoughts, feelings, and a depth of emotions. I would like to add that I think that is one of the things that Grimly did so well in his book, convey the well-rounded character of the monster!
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the ending of the graphic novel, even though the monster went off to die alone, I saw him as being more selfless and sacrificial compared to Victor in the end. Victor was bent on revenge and getting rid of the creature till his last breath. The creature did commit some heinous crimes, in the end he mourned his creator and realized his mistakes.
ReplyDeleteI personally feel the ending of the story helps to cement our earlier emotions of sympathy and the overall lesson Shelly and Grimly are attempting to teach their audience. While "happy" endings are often more satisfying from an entertainment standpoint, I feel that this ending requires its audience to think more deeply. For example, the creature should have never existed, so I personally was left to wonder how those affected lives would have been different had Victor gone down a different path and never created the creature. I'm not personally sure that I would have thought of this perspective had the creature and Victor lived.
ReplyDeleteI find a special, dark kind of satisfaction in the "unhappy" endings of great stories. I like to say that good poems should leave the reader feeling like they just got punched in the gut, and the same can go for novels and sometimes movies too (I actually really appreciate the ending of "Night of the Living Dead"). There's something about being left with raw, unresolved emotions of sympathy, shock, grief, or what have you. The discomfort encourages the audience to sit a little longer with the message and, as you said, think more deeply about it.
DeleteThat's an interesting take away that I never really considered before, but I think you're right and it could be even broader; not only do we alienate those who don't speak our languages, but also those who are physically different and mentally incapacitated. I feel like my eyes are open now that you brought this up!
ReplyDeleteWe so much associate language with meaning you are a capable, logical creature. We put ourselves above animals because our brains are complex enough to create, digest, and understand languages. Attributing this sort of intelligence to a monster helps us believe that they are not a monster at all. But what you've pointed out here with how a lot of bigots feel towards other languages, and speaking certain ones as being better is really interesting. Why did we only give the monster empathy when he was empathetic? I think this point also says a lot about class.
ReplyDeleteThe first time I read Shelly's Frankenstein, I was caught completely off guard by the monster's way of speaking. I didn't think about it at the time, but your point about how most of us don't see humanity in him until we hear him speak is spot on. For me (at least hopefully) it may not be a cultural prejudice, but rather a question of classification. In one of Cohen's other theses, he argues that monsters create a crisis of classification. Up until the point that he first speaks, very little about him is human. His appearance is grotesque, he murders, and he stalks. Once we see something (anything) that goes against our initial judgement of him, we can begin to question his monstrosity.
ReplyDelete