Not what I expected from a monster story

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.  

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?

Which Thesis?

Honestly, a lot of this theory was quite difficult for me to understand and I had a hard time with it, so hopefully what I write here is coherent. I felt that the creature from Frankenstein could belong under thesis III in the sense that he does not belong to any particular category in terms of morality; he is neither wholly good or wholly evil. But, then I realized that this thesis is mostly talking about the anatomical nature of the monster, so this one doesn't really apply as much anymore. Then, when I came to thesis V, I felt that this one better represented the creature because, as the text says, the creature is "a warning against exploration of its uncertain demesnes." (Cohen 12). This is a huge theme in this novel; we are not only presented with a monster and his pursuit at happiness and eventually evil, but a huge aspect of the novel is the personal turmoil Viktor experienced after having created this monster and viewing its repercussions.

Image is from 1994 Frankenstein Film

Monsters Are Our Children

Cohen's seventh thesis "The Monster Stands at the Threshold... of Becoming". It really made me think.  I agree with what he says on this matter, for the most part. Monsters are our descendants, in a way. They contain our strengths and weaknesses. Monsters can be curious about things, even their mere existence. Frankenstein wonders about his purpose and why he is here. Monsters learn from their experiences and may even have a higher understanding for certain things than we do. Monsters push the limits of right and wrong. Monsters feel curious for the world they live in and how misrepresented it is. Monsters probably also feel they are misunderstood and misinterpreted. They open the door to higher thinking. Attempting to understand their viewpoint and feelings is surreal. It is a good thing that monsters do not actually exist. They do exist if we count grotesque and deadly humans. That is a whole other story.

Us versus the Monsters

“These monsters ask us how we perceive the world, and how we have misrepresented what we have attempted to place.  They ask us to reevaluate our cultural assumptions about race, gender, and sexuality, our perception of difference, our tolerance towards its expression.  They ask us why we have created them.”(Cohen 20)

The creature in Frankenstein asks Victor why he created him.  What was Victor’s purpose in doing so and what message or lesson is this supposed to instill in us as the reader and society? Does the creature serve to remind us that in having these assumptions and intolerance, that it makes us into monsters ourselves?

Image Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/hernan-cortes-conquest-of-aztecs-timeline-2136533

Labels and the Use of Monsters

Jeffery Jerome Cohen's Monster Culture (Seven Theses) really got me thinking and I really liked the organization of the text. It was difficult to develop just one question so I wrote two. But was further interested by later parts of the text.

Page 6- "This refusal to participate in the classifictory "order of things" is true of monsters generally: they are disturbing hybrids whose externally incoherent bodies resist attempts to include them in any systematic structuration. And so the monster is dangerous, a form suspended between forms that threatens to smash distinctions."

How does our creation and use of monsters illustrate our need for order and labels? Historians are OBSESSED with labeling subjects, time periods, ideas etc.and anything that fits outside our labels is troubling.

Page 8- "In the United State, Native Americans were presented as unredeemable savages so that the powerful political machine of Manifest Destiny could push westward with disregard. Scattered throughout Europe by the Diaspora and steadfastly refusing assimilation into Christian society, Jews have been perennial favorites for xenophobic misrepresentation, for here was an alien culture living, working, and even at times prospering within vast communities dedicated to becoming homogeneous and monolithic. The Middle Ages accused the Jews of crimes ranging from the bringing of the plague to bleeding Christian children to make their Passover meal. Nazi Germany simply brought these ancient traditions of hate to their conclusion, inventing a Final Solution that differed from earlier persecutions only in its technological efficiency."

While the end of the quote referencing technological efficiency is hard to swallow, this quote brings up a good point about our use of "monsters." Is the use of monsters in fiction a stepping stone to monsternizing( is that a word?)  or othering aspects of our society? Is that something that has to be learned in a progressive manner or is it something that develops without the use of fiction and story telling?

He's Gone Mad

"I know not by what chain of thought the idea presented itself, but it instantly darted into my mind that the murderer had come to mock at my misery, and taunt me with the death of Clerval, as a new incitement for me to comply with his hellish desires. I put my hand before my eyes, and cried out in agony - 'Oh! Take him away! I cannot see him; for God's sake, do not let him enter!'" (153)

This quote was especially important to me and my understanding of the text, as it was the first point in which I actually began to sympathize with Frankenstein and understand the true impact that the creation had on him. For the first half of the text, I really identified with the creature and just kept thinking, "Frankenstein turned him into a monster, he wasn't one to begin with," and while I still believe that to be true, I also now see the mental influence that this creature really had on its creator. The gradual decline to insanity reminded me of Taxi Driver and The Shining - I feel like it's a pretty classic trope that you see in a lot of films and novels (those are just the first ones I thought of at the moment).

My question is, what do you think is more provoking: Frankenstein turning the creature into a monster, or the creature's effect on Frankenstein's mental condition?

Crazy and Hairy Frankenstein - Taken from Gris Grimly's Blog

Overcome by fear

"When I looked upon him, when I saw the filthy mass that moved and talked, my heart sickened. I tried to stifle these sensations..." (117).

I have personally written and read many comments of others that the creature is someone to pity due to how society treats him based off his appearance; however, I have to question that if, in reality, we would be able to be sympathetic to the creature? I would like to believe that I could see beyond his overpowering, in-human appearance. But sadly, I think that something so out of the norm would be startling and out of uncertainly usually stems fear. I think Grimly's remix makes this story an accessible text to younger audiences due to the pictorial use--not because the pictures inherently make it childish, but the metaphor of the blind man was more easily translated: he is the only one able to "see" the sincerity of the creature because he is not "blinded" by his appearance. So my main question is what examples of the creature exist in our own society? And how do we overcome our misplaced fears to see what is truly in front of us and teach younger generations to not have that fear in the first place? 

Cloning = Bad

"Whereas monsters born of political expedience and self-justifying nationalism function as living invitations to action . . . the monster of prohibition polices the borders of the possible, interdicting through its grotesque body some behaviors and actions, envaluing others." (Cohen 13)

Thesis V seems particularly relevant to Frankenstein, as the text can be read as a critique of the monstrous possibilities of science. Even today, we live in a moment that both fears and desires scientific progress, and we see the same policing in pop culture (heck, couldn't you argue that the Clone Troopers are the monstrous children of the science of cloning?).

To Reappear Someplace Else

"We see the damage that the monster wreaks, the material remains, ...but the monster itself turns immaterial and vanishes, to reappear someplace else.... No matter how many times King Arthur killed the ogre of Mount Saint Michael, the monster reappeared in another heroic chronicle, bequeathing the Middle Ages an abundance of morte d'Arthurs" (4).

This quote seems especially relevant for our class.  Through the lens of Grimley's Frankenstein, it's obvious that the creation from Shelly's original has returned in a new form.  We can also point to several film adaptations, cartoon references, and Halloween costumes.  But what about monsters in texts that haven't been remixed?  If we pretend that Shelly's Frankenstein was the first and last appearance of this sort of monster, how can we imagine his return?  Assuming he fulfills his promise to end his life, ould he continue to exist in-universe through Walton's retelling of the tale?  Would he live on through "new" monsters that may have taken some influence from Shelly?

There's only seven?

I've read the Monster Culture (Seven Theses) and I think it's important that we all keep in mind that he refers to these as a "search of specific cultural moments" (4).  I don't think Monster Culture can be easily defined in seven separate theses, but I think it's a great start and begins a dialogue of why these types of stories have been in our human culture forever, and it's a wonderful way to start a psychological and cultural study of monsters and their meaning to the human experience.  It's not the monster itself, but the values and power we give to the monster that help to explain ourselves, and I think Cohen makes some strong arguments with evidence.. . . for most of them.

I did become frustrated with his lack of depth on number seven.  As a matter fact I kept looking to see if I was missing a page!  He seems to end his theses with confusion.  If this was his literary purpose it worked!   

Are you Afraid or Excited?

I think the book and the article point to an interesting question:  How do you view monsters?  Are you frightened or excited?  Does the idea of looking beyond life make you excited, or do you feel like you are touching on things that just shouldn't be messed with?  I mentioned this in my discussion question, but this book and article reminds me so much of the Hamlet question:  Is the ghost in Hamlet real or imagined?  Whatever you think will change the way the entire production/reading takes place.  Neither is the definitive stance, you could see it either way.  And THAT is why this story (and other monster stories) continue to intrigue us today!