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

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

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

Gris Grimly

Elizabeth recovering from scarlet fever, page 40

"She had, at first, yielded to our entreaties; but when she heard that her favorite was recovering, she could no longer debar herself, and entered her chamber long before the danger of infection was past".

Wow, this is amazing

"It is with considerable difficulty that I remember the original area of my being. I saw, felt, heard, and smelt, at the same time; and it was, indeed, a long time before I learned to distinguish between the operations of my various sense. It was dark when I awoke..." (86)

When I read Frankenstein, this section of the novel was by far my favorite. I loved hearing about the Monster's story of experiencing life and finding the cabin and watching the family. I didnt think it could be done in any other way, but when I read the graphic version of this section, I was astonished by the way Grimly portrayed this section. I absolutely loved the way he made only a few words here and there appear in the text; this was such a beautiful way of showing Frankenstein's growing understanding of language. My question is, if you have read the original novel, what was your favorite translation in the Grimly graphic novel?

The Vibe of the Illustrations in this Book Define "Steampunk"

I've noticed that a lot of folks have already commented on the main plot point of this novel that I had been excited to talk about as well--what defines something or someone a monster, where do the lines begin to blur between good versus evil? I think this is excellent and is why in any format, Frankenstein has always been a compelling story. However, to make my post (hopefully) slightly different than others, I'll ask about how the formatting of Gris Grimley's Frankenstein particularly contributed to the story.

This book wasn't a pure definition of comic-book, but also wasn't purely an illustration book either. This remix of Frankenstein added a childlike wonder in the illustrations for me, so I will ask:

Did this remix of Frankenstein make the story more digestible and accessible for younger audiences to enjoy? Was it just the illustrations or something else in the formatting of the story? Do comic books or books with illustrations automatically correlate to being for children in your eyes?

Trying to identify the everyday monsters in 2020 be like

Increased Creepiness :)

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.)

What Constitutes a Monster?

After reading the first hundred pages of Grimley's Frankenstein along with Asma's "Monsters and the Moral Imagination," I couldn't help but ask myself, what exactly characterizes someone as a "monster"?

We see monsters played out millions of ways in film, art, music, and literature, but what exactly is the determining factor in their monstrous label? Asma's retelling of the coffee bar story made me wonder if someone with Silva's mental capacity could be a monster, and in a sense, I guess the term doesn't discriminate. It kind of reminded me of a Law & Order episode where a mentally handicapped man ended up killing numerous people because he was convinced they were all agents for the KGB who were trying to keep him out of the Olympics (he was a roller skater, but that's a longer discussion) so he had to kill them to protect himself. Does that make him a monster?

Honestly, I don't know the answer. Obviously killing someone else is morally wrong, but what if your mind convinces you that there is no other choice and you're doing it for the "greater good," or simply to protect your own life? I think the lines get blurry when your mental capacity is handicapped.

After reading Grimley's Frankenstein, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the "monster" who never asked to be created in the first place. I've never read Shelley's novel before, but I would imagine that the illustrations in Grimley's text make it easier to swallow... Although I think the particular illustrations towards the end of our reading made it even harder for me to see the monster as a true monster, and just made me feel even worse for him.

The Monster, longing for interaction. Picture taken from Pinterest

Uhhhhhhhh.......

Boris Karloff does not approve.

Why does nobody have any issue with Mrs. Frankenstein trying to set her son up with his first cousin, Elizabeth?

What Makes a Monster

This week's readings of "Monsters and the Moral Imagination" and Grimley's "Frankenstein" really hit home with me.  First before I go into the main topic of my post, I wanted to say that I enjoyed reading this comic version of Frankenstein.  I have always had a hard time reading the original story, I always got dragged down in the language.  The imagery helped to give life to the psychological and moral challenges presented in the story.

In the "Monsters and the Moral Imagination" article, Asma points out that perhaps there has been an increased interest in monsters and mayhem due to turmoil in the society.  Especially as we are going through this COVID-19 crisis,  I wonder if there is going to be even more of an interest in monsters and mayhem.  Asma said, "monsters can stand as symbols of human vulnerability and crisis.  Part of our fascination with serial-killer monsters is that we (and our loved ones) are potentially vulnerable to sadistic violence."  In a crisis such as what has been going on with the virus, people are more prone to become these monsters.  A week and a half ago, a man came driving down my main street that I live on and killed his ex wife and shot one of my neighbor's teenage son dead.  I drove down the road five minutes after this all occurred.  This made me think, what would I have done if I had been directly involved?  Also, what makes someone turn into a sadistic monster?  As I read Frankenstein, I felt sympathy for the creature.  The creature was not given the opportunity to learn right from wrong; it was the job of Victor to give him the foundation for a good life.  Instead Victor spurned the creature leading to both of their downfalls.  Society seems to spurn people that are different and it is society who helps to make the monsters real and imaginary.

Image Source: https://allthatsinteresting.com/serial-killer-quotes