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?

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

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?