Kat @nerdfighter72 - Tumblr Blog

"And now, once again, I bid my hideous progeny go forth and prosper." (MWS' introduction, 1831)

PART 1: The Protagonist

You present this as a “formal complaint”, yet do not state any actual, proper reasoning from the very first part of said complaint. Your claim that Victor was “whiny” disregards his grief for the sake of mocking him and belittling his struggle.

Diminishing Victor Frankenstein‘s character to a “whiny, pathetic little loser” by hyper-focusing on the realism of his characterisation, whilst in itself an inaccurate portrayal of Shelley’s writing (which will be countered momentarily), is also grossly dismissive of the very strong presence of the gothic romantic within the text and its influence on the narrative and its characters. Hyper-focus on the tortured protagonist’s psychological state and emotional turmoil is commonplace in the genre, oftentimes to a wildly melodramatic degree, and Mary Shelley’s work is no exception in how she characterises her protagonists with an explicit emphasis on their inner mental workings. Other literary works of the same genre close to this period would be very similar, for example in La Morte Amoureuse, Gautier’s protagonist Romuald is equally “pathetic”, for lack of a better word, to modern readers’ perceptions, or in Tarchetti’s Fosca, the titular protagonist is similarly exaggerated. Closer to the end of the 19th century, gothic protagonists would begin to lose these traits and become more grounded, but before that, gothic melodrama was commonplace. We would counter to your reading of Frankenstein’s character in the same way, however, that Mary Shelley subverts the traditional gothic romantic melodrama with a sense of heavy realism for its time — of course, her work still carries influences of the romantic period, but one can’t necessarily cite this as a flaw in her work. ‘Frankenstein’ is romantic, but raw. Transcendentalist, but equally cynical. These elements can, and do, coexist, and are shown explicitly in Victor Frankenstein’s character, as he carries all the traits of traditional gothic melodrama, but with the backup to make it possible, and therefore terrifying, because with Shelley’s context it is no longer melodramatic. This is also emphasised within the medium of the letter format itself, as content truly does dictate form in this instance, the epistolary nature of the novel emphasising the intention of realism by Shelley in not only the themes of the novel, but its eponymous protagonist, which you, funnily, seem to disagree with.

It is also strange that to choose to reference the 1931 movie in this post by including the phrase “It’s alive!”; It is clear that the two characters of Henry Frankenstein (the movie) and Victor Frankenstein (the book) are very different from one another if not polar opposites. You downplay Victor’s actual reaction to the Creature; it was not simply a matter of beauty. Victor’s actual response is understandable, and you would likely react the same way. The only reason you think you wouldn't is due to the book’s deep influence on pop culture (see: part 7). Seeing a stitched up, eight foot tall, amalgamation of corpses moving around would unsettle most people if not outright traumatise. The descriptions of the Creature repeatedly emphasise his grotesquery —- here are two early examples:

“His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.” (ch. 5, 1831)

“I had gazed on him while unfinished; he was ugly then, but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived.” (ch. 5, 1831)

It would no doubt be any man’s first instinct to run from him. The majority of human beings the Creature encounters run from him or defend themselves from his garishness, it is not like Victor is uniquely cowardly. Only two humans do not flee from him immediately: Old Man DeLacey —- a blind man that cannot see him — and Robert Walton — who still had to build up the courage to look at him and was only not violently frightened because he was warned about the Creature.

Victor “went to sleep” as a very basic response to the trauma experienced seeing the Creature physically alive. He did not expect the Creature to “get out of [his] house”. Victor spent months, if not years studying, trying, reattempting his theories, pouring his heart and soul into a project, so much so he was unable to communicate with his loved ones. This extensive period during which he was not taking proper care of himself mentally or physically led to this reaction, and later became a huge reason for Victor’s lengthy recovery period. When Frankenstein left the house and returned with Clerval, he fully expected the Creature to still be there. This implies that Victor did not abandon the Creature by choice—the Creature left of his own accord.

You compare Victor to other scientists, whom you refer to as “Real Scientists”. The “Real Scientists” you speak of would be also horrified by the Creature’s appearance, if not more than Victor due to the disturbing nature of the Creature’s origins. Not only that, but by separating Victor from the “Real Scientists” holds the implication that Victor did not contribute meaningfully to science. This is blatantly false; discovering how to reanimate lifeless matter — creating an entirely new life —- would be a groundbreaking discovery. Should it have not been an event of fiction and discovered in the real world, it may have changed the course of history. It is no less impressive simply because the Creature was horrifying.

Furthermore, the fact that Victor rejected his creation is crucial to the story; it's intentional and thematically significant. It is what makes the story memorable. The story would not exist in the same way if Victor was pleased with his experiment; this deliberate author’s choice subverts the expectation of a creator being satisfied with his creation’s life. This is highlighted in the text when Victor’s pre-Creature expectations are paralleled to the actual result of his actions. Victor claims that— “A new species would bless [him] as its creator and source; many happy and excellent Creatures would owe their being to [him]” (ch. 4, 1831) while the Creature, who has suffered a painful life, does not bless his creator but curses him— “Hateful day when I received life! (...) Accursed creator!” (ch. 15, 1831)

It is also important to remember that Victor is in college, in his early twenties; young people like himself often make poor or impulsive decisions, some which affect their lives forever. Victor’s actions can be specifically likened to unplanned pregnancy and parenthood. He doesn’t recognize the responsibility he has to the Creature and is instead horrified by the life he has created. His prolonged illness following the Creature’s “birth” therefore serves as a metaphorical representation of a form of postpartum depression; any reminder of the Creature or his needs seems to trigger his bouts of melancholy as much as the many deaths of his loved ones.

PART 2: The Writing

You admit that you skipped a lot of pages due to being too descriptive and scenery focused. This verbosity is fairly common in works of the Romantic period, including Frankenstein and the works of some of Mary’s companions, such as Lord Byron and Percy Shelley; if you don’t like this, you simply don’t like Romanticism. That is fine.

Shelley, though, tends to use scenery to foreshadow or match character’s emotions at important parts in the novel, such as how it begins to storm once Victor meets the Creature, or how Victor enjoys the beautiful alps upon his return home to Geneva. She also uses these descriptors to illustrate the divide between the gothic and romantic aspects of the novel. For example, these descriptions are most prominent during Victor and Clerval’s travels, but disappear after the death of Clerval to symbolize his importance to Victor, and his embodiment of the romantic ideals. This can also be seen in the Creature’s perspective, where he begins life enamored with beauty and becomes increasingly uninterested as despair overtakes him. Therefore, Shelley’s heavy use of descriptive imagery regarding the natural world serves a distinct narrative purpose within the novel, and highlights specific character developments.

PART 3: Plot Holes

You insist that everything would have gone well if only Justine had lied, or if only Victor had confided in someone. That if only it happened, everyone would have believed them without doubt and questions. Every potential solution you suggested was addressed in the novel and intentionally shown to be doomed to fail, and therefore cannot be considered plot holes.

There was nothing that Justine could have said to convince the court to spare her. Justine’s circumstances forced her to confess. She knew she had no shot at a fair trial. She might’ve pleaded not guilty had the judges not, using the religious beliefs she held, told her that she would go to Hell if she didn’t confess. Considering the same religious guilt-based manipulation her mother used earlier in her life – “The conscience of the woman was troubled; she began to think that the deaths of her favorites was a judgment from heaven to chastise her partiality. … She sometimes begged Justine to forgive her unkindness, but more often accused her of having caused the deaths of her brothers and sister” (ch. 6, 1831) — Justine’s trauma caused her to comply. Nothing Victor could’ve done would’ve changed that.

Since Justine was such a longtime member of the household, somebody did actually believe she was innocent: Elizabeth. Victor supported her case for Justine as well by visiting her in jail and making it clear to his entire family repeatedly that he believed strongly in her innocence:

“You are all mistaken; I know the murderer. Justine, poor, good Justine, is innocent.” (ch. 7, 1831)

“My dear father, you are mistaken; Justine is innocent.” (ch. 7, 1831)

“She is innocent, my Elizabeth,” said I, “and that shall be proved; fear nothing, but let your spirits be cheered by the assurance of her acquittal.” (ch. 7, 1831)

He didn’t provide his evidence, but the family dynamics and logic leading to that decision will be discussed later in this rebuttal. Elizabeth gave character testimony for Justine and attempted to defend her based on the lackluster evidence, but the courts disregarded her. They were both young women, in the eighteenth century, with Justine being lower class. No amount of truth from them would overcome societal prejudice.

You suggest that Justine should have just lied that William gave her the necklace—not only does the lie that you suggested not fit with the rest of her story, but Justine is Catholic and would not lie under oath.

“God knows,” she said, “how entirely I am innocent. But I do not pretend that my protestations should acquit me; I rest my innocence on a plain and simple explanation of the facts which have been adduced against me, and I hope the character I have always borne will incline my judges to a favourable interpretation where any circumstance appears doubtful or suspicious.” (ch. 8, 1831)

Additionally, there was more evidence against her than just being found with a necklace. Justine had been away from Geneva the entire evening and was only seen in the general area of the murder, around the time of the murder; thus had no alibi — “She was alarmed by this account and passed several hours in looking for him, when the gates of Geneva were shut, and she was forced to remain several hours of the night in a barn belonging to a cottage, being unwilling to call up the inhabitants, to whom she was well known” (ch. 8, 1831). Every piece of evidence framed Justine, so why would the judges trust her testimony?

All of these aspects of the trial further serve as proof to Victor that if he were to tell the truth about the Creature, there is not a hint of a chance that he would be believed at all, let alone any chance of a solution so simple as a full acquittal. Furthermore, the false charge and clearly improper trial were intentional narrative-choices made by the author to highlight the unfair and biased nature of society. Justine’s condemnation is not meant to be viewed as correct—it is a warning of what the justice system often does to impoverished, and/or otherwise alienated individuals.

Victor had previously recovered from a near-death experience, having been gravely ill and suffering psychosis. He was not in the proper physical or mental state to testify for someone on trial, nor could he adequately defend himself if he took the blame. Expecting Victor to be the beacon of morality and sound reasoning after his brother was recently murdered, while simultaneously suffering from untreated severe mental illness that actively disrupts reality is cruel and unrealistic.

Victor’s original intent was to tell the court the truth so that the Creature could be condemned. Victor failed to speak up about the Creature in court because he feared that not only the courts, but anyone he spoke to would “[look] upon it as the ravings of insanity.” (ch. 7, 1831) This apprehension stems from his recent recovery from illness and psychosis; additionally, he is correct in this assumption, considering that when he does go and tell the magistrate the entire story after Elizabeth's death following a similar bout of sickness, he is dismissed and seen as a madman.

At this point in the book, Victor has absolutely no evidence. He lacks proof that the Creature committed the crime. Even if he were to fabricate something, it wouldn’t refute Justine’s, although coerced, confession.

Victor had latched onto the idea of the Creature being the murderer of William because, during a storm, he saw the silhouette of a tall figure that sort of resembled the Creature while on his way home to Geneva. This sighting occurred outside of Geneva, far from the location of William’s murder. It just so happened that Victor was correct and the Creature had killed William, but Victor was still jumping to conclusions at this point of the story.

As readers, we didn’t know yet whether the Creature was the murderer as well. Victor is narrating a story and we are seeing it in the nuances of a man who already understands what is going to happen, because he’s already been through it—in this way, Frankenstein is a tragedy. What may be clear cut to the reader (and to Victor, our narrator, after the fact) were not clear to Victor when these events were actually happening. It is silly to claim Victor should have been omniscient.

It’s also important to consider the context of Victor’s upbringing here. His father was a well-respected and distinguished judge; which instilled in Victor a strong belief in the legal system . If Victor had claimed to see a large, intimidating monster the court would have dismissed his testimony as the ramblings of a sickly madman, possibly sending him to an asylum — something Victor had also noted:

“A thousand times rather would I have confessed myself guilty of the crime ascribed to Justine; but I was absent when it was committed, and such a declaration would have been considered as the ravings of a madman, and would not have exculpated her who suffered through me.” (ch. 8, 1831)

Such a statement, especially so if Victor was provided psychiatric “treatment,” could have tainted his father’s reputation, especially since their family had a history of serving as counsellors and syndics. The current generation of Frankensteins, including Victor, was expected to uphold this legacy. He was under the pressure of both the legal system and family.

Victor’s only viable option to gain belief in his claims was to defend Justine’s character, similar to how Elizabeth did. He attempted this before and after trial, stating “my passionate and indignant appeals were lost on [the court],” (ch. 8, 1831) but ultimately his efforts failed. Victor did what he could given his situation, while also trying not to undermine his credibility.

And, even after all this, if the court and authorities had taken Victor seriously, we know that the Creatures could evade capture regardless of how many “armed officers” pursued him, considering he did so multiple times.

Victor’s family was not “the sweetest, most forgiving, loving group of people.” Without even speaking of the pseudo-incestuous marriage Victor and Elizabeth were coerced into, the Frankensteins were far from that. Throughout the novel, Alphonse advised Victor to suppress his grief for the sake of the family. After William’s death, he tells Victor that it is his duty to “refrain from augmenting their unhappiness by an appearance of immoderate grief” (ch. 9, 1831), as well as saying that Victor and Elizabeth’s marriage would result in “new and dear objects of care [being] born to replace those of whom we have been so cruelly deprived” (ch. 22, 1831). He would not have pitied and comforted Victor for having created the Creature who was destroying his family.

Only Clerval was shown comforting Victor in an effective manner. Alphonse, on the other hand, was shown to value the sanctity of his ideal family dynamic above the comfort and health of his children, trying to have Victor and Elizabeth marry as soon as possible once Victor was healthy enough to return home after Henry’s death, despite both noticeably dreading the ceremony.

PART 4: The wedding night scene

When the Creature claimed he would be with Victor on his wedding night, it came directly after Victor destroys the Creature’s mate. He had been working on this project on and off for months, and the added stress of the Creature watching his every move was not conducive to clear thinking.

Victor's misinterpretation of the Creature's threat “I will be with you on your wedding night” was Shelley’s deliberate display of dramatic irony, which is common in Gothic literature. The audience can deduce that the Creature would target Elizabeth and not Victor, but Victor doesn’t. This bit also further cements Frankenstein as a tragedy and, because of the disconnect between what characters perceive and what the reader anticipates, it highlights the theme of fate throughout the novel (which is particularly prominent in the 1831 version).

It’s true that Victor initially thought he would be the one the Creature intended to kill. However, he later stated that if he returned to the mainland, he would either die or see the people he loved die, “If I returned, it was to be sacrificed, or to see those whom I most loved die under the grasp of a dæmon whom I myself have created.” (ch. 20, 1831) This indicated that Victor did acknowledge, at least to some extent, that Elizabeth was at risk.

Aside from the misunderstanding, he was primarily worried about Elizabeth’s pain if he were to die.

“The prospect did not move me to fear; yet when I thought of my beloved Elizabeth,—of her tears and endless sorrow, when she should find her lover so barbarously snatched from her,—tears, the first I had shed for many months, streamed from my eyes, and I resolved not to fall before my enemy without a bitter struggle.” (ch. 20)

He likely assumed the worst thing the Creature could do to him was to make his final moments spent knowing Elizabeth would lose her happiness, which brings us back to the point that he did not love Elizabeth as a wife. Even by the natural logic of “I killed my Creature's wife, maybe he will kill mine.” (which seems to be your reasoning), he did not understand her in that way.

Furthermore, every decision Victor made regarding his wedding after Henry’s death was made with the sole aim of reducing the harm to Elizabeth (and Alphonse and Ernest). Victor believed that if he was to go through with the arranged marriage, “My destruction might indeed arrive a few months sooner, but if my torturer should suspect that I postponed [the wedding], influenced by his menaces, he would surely find other and perhaps more dreadful means of revenge” (ch. 22, 1831). He saw the Creature’s threat as leaving him with only the two options of:

marrying Elizabeth immediately for the sake of his family’s happiness, resulting in himself almost certainly being killed.

postponing the wedding in an attempt to delay the execution of the threat, likely resulting in Elizabeth’s death as punishment for defying the Creature once again (this is what just killed Henry).

Now let's address the wedding night scene itself. To suggest that Victor “just stood around on his honeymoon with a pistol while Elizabeth got brutally murdered upstairs” is an incredibly reductive view of the situation that paints Victor in an unfairly harsh light. By this point, he had not yet realized that Elizabeth was the main target of the Creature’s threat, and therefore he worried for her mostly in terms of the psychological impact of witnessing the anticipated fight to the death against the Creature. Which was still Victor trying to protect Elizabeth, not carelessly allowing the murder to happen as you imply.

Additionally, Victor was not just standing around passively waiting for the Creature without a thought in his head — quite the opposite, in fact. He spent the night patrolling the hallways of the inn in a state of extreme terror, checking for anywhere the Creature could sneak up on him. Victor wasn’t even resigned to his own perceived fate, he actively did everything he could to stand a chance against the Creature so that Elizabeth wouldn’t have to experience the loss of yet another dear family member.

Even if creating dramatic irony in a work of gothic literature isn’t enough reason, there are still reasons that are clear in text of why Victor thought as he did. His obvious stress and misinterpretation is what allowed the tragedy to occur. He never thought physical harm would come to Elizabeth because he thought the Creature would finally enact his final revenge and kill Victor, bringing Victor pain in the form of knowing that Elizabeth would be forever pained and alone because of his death. He did everything in his power to reduce the pain but because of the pressure put on him to marry Elizabeth and follow through by Alphonse, this tragedy occurred.

PART 5: Victor’s Morality

Yes, the Creature offers Victor a “clean deal”. However, you seem to somehow overlook the fact that this deal is inherently flawed. And Victor himself is apparently far more aware of this than you are, despite being a “whiny, pathetic little loser.” He even articulates this understanding before he even mentions the concept of reproduction:

“...and she, who in all probability was to become a thinking and reasoning animal, might refuse to comply with a compact made before her creation.” (ch. 20, 1831)

The Creature, in short, is not merely asking for companionship. He asks for a Creature of another sex: a wife. He has settled an arranged marriage with a woman who hasn't even been “born” yet. Although she will possess her own agency and opinions, Victor recognizes this arrangement as a troubling reflection of his own circumstances—specifically, the pseudo-incestuous promise made to him by his mother regarding Elizabeth. The Creature specifically asks for “...a creature of another sex, but as hideous as myself…”, believing she should share in his lack of choice regarding partnership.

This only makes the proposed “solution” a much bigger issue: “Just perform a tubectomy.”

It’s odd when your intent is to make a claim about a character’s morality, but you believe the moral action he should have taken is to put a vulnerable woman into an arranged marriage with an emotionally unstable man while also stripping her of her reproductive rights.

It is relatively understandable why the Creature has this mentality (he is bitterly lonely due to the way he is, with no one else to relate to, and the society around him, in literature and in the DeLacey family, is very much rooted in heteronormativity)—but he is not owed anything from others outside the basic rights to live, especially not in a romantic, sexual and/or marital sense.

Victor would actually be more selfish by deciding the fate of a woman who cannot give her consent for the sake of keeping his own peace while still executing the Creature’s wishes—destroying the female Creature is actually one of the good decisions he makes.

PART 6: Victor’s Health

This section was crossed out but it will be responded to anyways as certain things still need to be pointed out and addressed. It is agreed that we should identify any ailments Victor has, so let’s explore that now. During the time of the novel, hysteria would serve to describe his condition, but that's an outdated term that doesn’t really address or explain anything.

But before we diagnose him, it’s important to acknowledge the role genetics almost certainly play. Starting with Victor’s grandfather, who, after being unemployed for several months, fell ill from the grief. Was the illness that eventually claimed his life caused solely by grief? Probably not entirely, but it does mirror Victor’s illness that followed after losing Henry. Victor’s mother Caroline is next in line and she also meets her end at the hands of an illness (scarlet fever) that both Elizabeth and Justine recover from. Victor’s younger brother, Ernest, who is the only Frankenstein to survive the novel, is described as being “afflicted with ill health from his infancy” (ch. 1, 1818). That makes three people—all related to Victor—who suffer from ill health.

Now, back to Victor. Throughout the novel, he gets seriously ill three times. The first mention of him becoming ill is right after creation of the Creature, during which he neglects his health for nearly two years, resulting in a "slow fever." The second is after he loses Henry to the Creature and faces accusations of killing him. The third and fatal one happens after he chases the Creature across the world.

It was noticed that even though you retracted *how many times* Victor faints, you still said that he was “not off the hook.” What wrongdoing are you claiming he is not excused from? Fainting, and other such symptoms, are not controllable. Even if he did pass out 40 times, what would the problem be? You cannot claim his fainting spells or other symptoms are a stain on his character without invoking some level of ableist rhetoric.

Victor faints in the novel following the creation of the Creature, a time when he is neglecting his basic needs, experiencing intense stress about the possibility of Henry discovering the Creature, and facing a storm outside. The combination of mental and physical stress factors makes this the perfect environment to trigger an episode or flare up.

There is no excuse for making fun of a disabled/chronically ill character’s symptoms. People say the same things to disabled people in real life, accusing people of faking because our symptoms seem ridiculous. It is easy to disregard human suffering when you are not experiencing it, but it is also important to remember there are people outside yourself who feel pain you do not.

PART 7: The Horror Factor

Frankenstein was written during a period where anything outside of biblical narratives and truths, in Shelley’s western society, was considered a horror. Frankenstein as a story shook the morals of many people in England at the time, especially with the 1823 stage production titled Presumption. Local magazines published reviews cautioning audiences not to attend the show under any circumstances. It was described:

A sincere well-wisher to the Moral and Religious Conduct of the Population of Birmingham, has witnessed with much regret the announcement of a Piece named " FRANKENSTEIN, or PRESUMPTION," for representation on Monday next. As if the impious description of the NOVEL were not enough, we must here have the very horrid and unnatural details it contains embodied and presented to the view. This piece, when acted in London, drew down the indignation of the moral men, and was publicly exposed by the Society for the Suppression of Vice and Immorality. In giving this Caution, the Author has but the best feeling towards his Fellow Townsmen, and he will be amply re-warded by observing it attended to. WHY do not the proprietors of this Theatre interfere to prevent this impiety?---it reflects highly on them! They should remember “The Wages of Sin are Death," and that the rent of such a place will poorly compensate them for the Sin and Sorrow they are daily heaping on the deluded frequenters of this "Grave of the Soul."

This is just an example of the public fear and outcry resulting from Frankenstein, not only for moral and religious concerns but also for the Horrid and Unnatural Details that the review mentions. Frankenstein is a Romantic story, yes, and might seem flowery to current readers, but we were raised in a time where the epitome of horror is as much guts and gore as you can fit onto a DVD.

What greater horror is there than a being that is not-of-this-world? The answer lies in between human and inhuman. People go crazy for “uncanny valley” horror, and I believe Frankenstein illustrates it perfectly.

Among fans of gothic literature, it is common to draw the Creature as a cutie patootie with luscious hair and weird eyes. Many fans do as such, and it is valid to depict the Creature however you like, but it is not canon. Your post is about book canon, and the Creature is canonically terrifying. You mention Victor passing out often as a “flaw” of his character, which we previously got into the ableist connotations of, but the reason he faints is because of the monster he created. To re-quote from the book,

“His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful!—Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion, and straight black lips.” (ch. 5, 1831)

The Creature is a monster! The fandom loves him dearly, but that’s what he is! A disproportionately large man with translucent, shriveled skin is, in fact, scary! He’s not a human with a deformity, he’s stitched together out of multiple people and possesses the ability to scale mountains and last for days without food. He was not articulate verbally until months spent studying the DeLaceys.

Ages have been spent studying the effects Frankenstein has had on pop culture and Horror as a genre. If the Creature appeared to readers as a well-spoken gentleman upon the release of the novel, we wouldn’t have Presumption, the 1931 movie, or the Universal and Hammer series, or so much of what defines Western film horror as we know it. While I do sympathize with the Creature, to reduce him to an innocent baby takes away all of his autonomy in the evil choices that he made and enacted upon the Frankenstein family.

On predictability: the plot may have been predictable to you because Frankenstein was such a fundamental book that it unknowingly shaped your perception of horror stories. The reason it feels“predictable” is because the book has been adapted 187 times directly. The plot has been used in far more indirect adaptations. The effect Frankenstein had on the horror genre is enough to make the book predictable, since you’ve already read/seen it in so many other places! In addition to that, I think you’re judging Frankenstein by the expectations set by the adaptations and pop culture rather than on its own merit. The complaint about how the Creature “should’ve been terrifying” but instead had “emotional monologues” not only implies that in order to meet your standards, the novel must conform to your expectations; but also largely ignores one of its major themes: that nobody is inherently monstrous.

PART 8: Character Development

As said before, this take is heavily anti-choice and unfeminist, as it outright encourages the removal of the Bride’s autonomy. The first thing Victor mentions about creating a female Creature was not children. But instead, the bride, had Victor truly put her to life, would in fact possess the same amount of autonomy and free will as the Creature does.

It seems hypocritical for people who claim to be feminists advocating for women’s rights suggesting that Victor simply should not have given the bride ovaries or the Creature a penis “which could fix everything because they won’t be able to reproduce evil children”, just in response to this one thing in that chapter:

"One of the first results of those sympathies for which the dæmon thirsted would be children, and a race of devils would be propagated upon the earth, who might make the very existence of the species of man a condition precarious and full of terror." (ch. 20, 1831)

You are right that Victor is worried about their capacity to reproduce, but it is strange that you manage to miss these lines from the very first paragraph of the chapter:

“He had sworn to quit the neighbourhood of man, and hide himself in deserts; but she had not; and she, who in all probability was to become a thinking and reasoning animal, might refuse to comply with a compact made before her creation. They might even hate each other; the Creature who already lived loathed his own deformity, and might he not conceive a greater abhorrence for it when it came before his eyes in the female form? She also might turn with disgust from him to the superior beauty of man; she might quit him, and he be again alone, exasperated by the fresh provocation of being deserted by one of his own species." (chapter 20, 1831)

The text is significantly longer than his complaint about two reproducing, so it is rather difficult to miss it. Victor reflects on her free will and he worries about her consent in the matter. By overlooking this aspect, you are ignoring the voice and the politics of Mary Shelley (a given, considering how much you seem to dislike her), who, as the daughter of a well-known feminist, opposed arranged & traditional marriages which this situation closely resembles.

Even if we ignore the fact a significant amount of the text was either missed or forgotten, why do you believe that Victor owes the Creature a wife? It is inherently gender-essentialist to believe that men, including the Creature, are entitled to women—that women, with their autonomy stripped, must become wives of strangers simply because a man desires so. This is objectification, and you make the active choice to participate in it by referring to her as the sexy corpse wife, sexualising her immediately despite her even having been born yet to be a character.

It is deeply anti-choice to deny the female Creature the ability to reproduce, should she have existed. To not give her a womb for Victor’s or the Creature’s own reasons would be a violation of reproductive rights and comparable to the forced sterilisation of ‘undesirable persons’ that was happening during the late 19th century to mid 20th century. People were forcibly sterilised because of their disabilities or/and their race to prevent them from having more children like them. This is eugenics.

It is also worth mentioning that the bride parallels Elizabeth. The relationship between her and the Creature would have likely paralleled that of Alphonse and Caroline Frankenstein, with the Creature possibly grooming her.

And why assume a new male Creature would want to be friends with the Creature? That Creature also has free will.

Putting the concept of free will aside, the Creature specifically desired a wife because that is what he was taught was the appropriate companion for a man. He attempts to imitate the relationship of Safie and Felix DeLacey, a couple composed of opposite sexes, and less obviously that of Adam and Eve. It is likely that the Creature holds the belief that woman was the natural companion of man; he had read Paradise Lost, an epic based on the story of Adam and Eve, he may have read about Eve (womankind) having been made for Adam (mankind) and therefore would think that he was owed a woman specifically. There is no evidence he would have accepted a male friend.

Victor initially agrees to the Creature’s deal because he thinks it will prevent the Creature from causing even more harm. He ultimately backs out and destroys the female Creature, not on the basis that they might be able to have children; instead, he realises that she will have free will just like the Creature, with the same decision making capacity. Therefore she likely would not have agreed to this arranged partnership. Taking away her reproductive capability would just be another exercise in taking away her autonomy.

The way you speak of the female Creature is extremely unfeminist.

You also make the claim that Victor does not have trauma, making his actions seem illogical. However, it is important to emphasise the inherently traumatizing nature of living with mental illness or disability in a society not made for people like you and the grooming within the Frankenstein family. At various times, Victor worries that he will be proclaimed mad, and this is not an absurd worry, because the world at the time was extremely hostile towards mentally ill individuals. It is fair to not want your perspective to be discarded because of your uncontrollable condition. The Frankenstein family also has deeply incestuous dynamics, even outside the outright incest. Elizabeth and Victor are not only expected to marry each other but are also often parentified, acting as both siblings and parents for their younger family members. Elizabeth is referred to as Alphonse’s “more than daughter,” and she even wore a locket with her mother’s face to further emphasise the incestuous dynamic between them. She is expected to be the mother figure, and Victor the father—both roles they can never truly take.

PART 9: Genre

Victor’s method and meticulous research during the creation process is actually quite relevant to the overall plot. His notebook, which contains all his research and notes, is ultimately how the Creature learns about his origins.

Not revealing the key to life in his narration is in fact a deliberate move on Victor’s part, it’s the whole point. He believes that no one should have the knowledge or power to do what he did. One aspect you seemingly fail to consider is this is a novel with a specific framing device, as also stated in the point below—he's telling Robert Walton his story, and it serves as a warning. A cautionary tale. So, it is only perfectly in character, and on the theme for him to not provide the man he's warning step-by-step instructions on what not to do.

Alchemical practices, which were directly mentioned (“When I returned home my first care was to procure the whole works of [Cornelius Agrippa], and afterwards of Paracelsus and Albertus Magnus,” ch. 2, 1831) within the novel as being Victor’s inspiration, were not an exact science but came as the precursor to chemistry. One common goal among alchemists was to create, or discover, the philosopher's stone, which could be used to transform “base” materials into their most valuable form. It was also believed to be capable of forming an elixir of life. This parallels Victor’s practice of turning corpses into beings—but also his search to overcome death through such actions. He hoped to synthesize from the “base material” of death, something new—an ideal human.

PART 10: More on Bad Writing

As mentioned in part 9, Victor’s telling his life story to Walton as a cautionary tale. That is the book’s purpose.

Victor is also not overly emotional. While he experiences significant internal turmoil due to multiple losses, this is a natural response for someone who has suffered. After all, he is just a human. When it comes to other characters, even those he is extremely close with, Victor mutes his emotions and feelings in favour of trying to make others feel better. The only exceptions to this are the Creature, who Victor feels comfortable hating openly, and Walton, who records Victor’s story days before he dies.

Regarding the Creature, he learned to speak in a romantic language in a romantic novel. He learned by reading books, most importantly Paradise Lost which very strongly follows biblical values and roles, some of which are romanticising humanity and the world. It is through this text and his experiences that he discovers how cruel humans can be.

All the characters talk eloquently because that was the writing style for dialogue in the book and Shelley’s choice. Varying writing styles are important, and they don’t have to be to everyone’s taste. Jane Austen and Oscar Wilde are not comparable to Shelley’s writing style, as Austen was writing when Shelley was a baby and Wilde didn’t start writing until forty years after Shelley’s death. Furthermore, they were not members of the same literary movement. Oscar Wilde was an aestheticist, Jane Austen was a romanticist, and Mary Shelley was a gothic romanticist. Shelley's contemporaries were writing between 1820 and 1840, which places them within her era.

Frankenstein is a novel in the Romantic style—a genre that emphasises the beauty of nature of emotion. Your claim, that Mary Shelley fails to show and not tell, is largely unsubstantiated and comes as a result of your failure to interpret subtext rather than her failure as a writer. While some information is explicitly stated, such as the Creature’s discontentment with his life, there is also implicit information, such as the disability allegory and the grooming within the Frankenstein family (which you haven’t noted).

Since the arguments are similar, part 2 will be addressed in further detail alongside part 10 below.

Writing is a deeply subjective matter. You can love or dislike an author’s style, but before dismissing it as bad because it seems convoluted, it’s important to establish one thing: before being a sci-fi novel, Frankenstein is a Romantic novel.

There’s a lot to say about the Romantic movement. Without going into a full history lesson, this will be condensed down to three key elements: Man, his emotions, and nature. A major fault among modern readers is to take a story literally, paying attention only to its narrative value. You mentioned skipping over a hundred pages and not missing any plot beats, however that method of consumption is incredibly detrimental to your overall understanding of the text. So much can be lost by reading like that; themes, nuance, etc. You claim the book to be awful, when you have not even read it in its intended form.

It is understandable why some readers may find the constant natural descriptions boring or pointless, but there is still importance in it. For a book you claim leaves "no room for interpretation", there are still a large number of ways to interpret nature in Frankenstein. It reflects the characters’ psychological states, influences them (and is influenced in return), and even serves as a parallel between Victor and the Creature. However, its most important role is to express the theme of the Sublime.

Flowers. Birds. A lake. These are sources of comfort and joy for the characters. They’re visually pleasing. Beautiful. The Alps, the Arctic, a thunderstorm, these are wild, unknowable forces, so much greater than us mere men. They inspire awe, fear. Sublime. These are the two aesthetic categories Edmund Burke defined in 1757. The Creature is the personification of the Sublime without the Beautiful: imposing, powerful and terrifying. Victor wanted to create something beautiful, and when instead faced with the Sublime, he fled, just like everyone else in the novel. The Creature and Victor contrast throughout the book even more because of these categories. Despite representing the Sublime, it finds comfort in the Beautiful, a stark parallel to the comfort that Victor finds in the Sublime but is unable to find in his own creation.

Maybe these aesthetics don’t speak to you personally, and that’s perfectly valid. But there is a great deal of hypocrisy in your argument that, because other writers of her time didn’t dwell so much on emotions and landscapes, Mary Shelley must be inferior to them (you cite Oscar Wilde and Jane Austen). That is a bizarre opinion to hold. A book is not automatically comparable to other classics, neither in genre nor in style, simply because it is also a classic.

Mary Shelley is a Romantic. Jane Austen is a satirist. Oscar Wilde is a satirist. The speeches given by Shelley’s characters are long, powerful, grandiose, and intellectual, much like those in a Shakespearean play. It was not meant to have the witty dialogue of Pride and Prejudice or The Importance of Being Earnest. One is a satire of Regency Britain and the class system told through a romance; the other is My Whole Family Was Killed By My 8ft Homunculus: The Novel.

But if a comparison must be drawn, what is your interpretation of the works of Oscar Wilde? The Picture of Dorian Gray, one of his major works, contains a chapter which is entirely devoted to describing Dorian’s paintings, jewelry, and clothes: it is a forty page display of opulence meant to showcase Dorian’s materialism, but the result is ultimately nothing of value; it is a work under Aestheticism — “art for art’s sake” — valuing the appearance of literature over its function. Oscar Wilde’s works display the same purple prose you criticize Mary Shelley for supposedly having. From this point on, part 10 will shift from analyses and external comparisons to address your criticisms which are explained within the book. Why does the Creature speak in such a manner? With long, “emotional” monologues, literary references, and language that feels outdated, even for the time the story takes place in?

What happens when someone has no one? No friends, no family, no contact with the outside world; only a parasocial relationship with a French family and three books. It’s not a huge sample size, but they were his only models, his only points of reference. If the Creature uses archaic terms, it’s because his references were archaic. Plutarch’s Lives was written in the 2nd century; Paradise Lost in 1667. These books didn’t just shape how he speaks, they are all he knows outside hatred.

The Creature specifically asks for a woman because the patriarchal model presented to him by the De Laceys, Paradise Lost, and The Sorrows of Young Werther taught him that a heterosexual relationship wasn’t just a solution to loneliness, but the natural order. God made Eve for Adam. Safie for Felix. So Victor must make a woman for the Creature—a submissive woman, even if she’s forced into marriage before her birth, even if she would be thrown into a world that would reject and abuse her, just like it did the Creature himself.

As for the length of the monologue: it was the first time he’d ever spoken to anyone with the exception of DeLacey. He had been walking through the forest for months, from Germany to Switzerland, with only two things on his mind: Victor, and what he was going to say to Victor. With all that time of planning and ruminating, it is obvious that he would have much to say.

To finish off, it is quite impressive how your post manages to be quite the masterpost of many common misinterpretations of Frankenstein, so much so that it managed to provoke such a response that was very fun to write among friends. I feel that our reply, now, is a response to every idea we have ever disagreed with in the history of Frankenstein analysis.

And that concludes our TED talk!

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Kat