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? 

My Life in Quarantine (Late!)

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?

Visual Impacts

This week's text is a highly new experience for me--both as I am unfamiliar with graphic novels/comics and I have had relevantly little experience with the Frankenstein plot. However, I found the mixed media format of this text highly effective for one main reason: Grimly depicts all characters in an eerily in-human fashion. As a result, I found the lines between those who are "human" and the "creature" blurred.

The Stephen Asma article intrigued me further as he writes, "the uses of monsters vary widely. In our liberal culture, we dramatize the rage of the monstrous creature—and Frankenstein's is a good example—then scold ourselves and our 'intolerant society' for alienating the outcast in the first place. The liberal lesson of monsters is one of tolerance: We must overcome our innate scapegoating, our xenophobic tendencies." (Asma). Again, I personally feel all the characters of Grimly's text have an "other' aspect to them. With all characters resembling something other than what we would typically assign as "human" our mind does not automatically cast the creature as something to be feared due to it's unfamiliar nature. At this point in the text, I have sympathy for the creature and very little for Victor. Combining the ideas of the McCloud theory from last week, I believe Grimly's remix of Shelly's story into a graphic text with visuals makes the overall work more impactful. The reader is challenged to question early on if the creature is, in fact, a "monster." 

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.)