Hello,
This is my first post on The Monster Blog, an online location where I will comment on different aspects of the literature I read in my Intro to Literature class (which will be focusing on monsters and monstrosities).
To start things off, I'd like to give my first impressions after reading Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley. As I began the book, I almost immediately realized that my "popular culture" based understanding of Frankenstein was almost totally inconsistent with the original text. I had never read the novel or watched any of the movies beforehand, and so my understanding of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster primarily came from Halloween costumes and the "It's alive!" quote. If I were to summarize the plot, it would have revolved primarily around a deranged doctor/scientist determined to re-animate monsters for the purposes of devastation and power. In reality, I found both Frankenstein and his monster not only to be thoughtful and multifaceted characters, but also ones without any (initial) desire to cause harm or evil. Ultimately, I thought it was a story that revolved around a conflict of ambition and a lack of acceptance. Despite the well meaning intentions of all characters in the story, however, it still proved to be an incredibly depressing and dark plot. While I was impressed with most parts of the story, I did that it could have done better in two areas. Firstly, I didn't ever feel a sense of fear in what is normally defined as a horror story. Maybe this is more a reflection of the year when I read this as opposed to when it was published, but it seemed to be more of a series of increasingly tragic events that a book that made you afraid to go outside at night. Secondly, I felt that more time could have been spent on Dr. Frankenstein's transformation that lead him to the morally and ethically questionable task of reanimating parts of dead bodies. In fairness, I did read the book in one sitting over the course of a few hours, which could have made this part feel briefer than it was. Still, I never really saw a tipping point when the ambitious chemistry student suddenly turned into man capable of digging up and stitching dead body parts together. Hopefully a re-reading of this part could shed more light on his situation.
Hey Kyle,
ReplyDeleteSo I think that the transformation from a seemingly "upstanding citizen" to a monster-creating madman is sort of what gives the story a "perverse" feel. Frankenstein was initially pretty relatable--just an innocent student seeking truth. In his narrative, he may have been so blinded in his quest for knowledge that he was unable to see the transformation going on in his mind, but the third-person reader is able to see his body slowly wasting away, and his social interactions change to the extent where we can see a sort of metamorphosis occurring. It is not until the monster's eyes are opened for the first time that he is truly able to see himself for what he has become. Shelley uses the idea of Frankenstein seeing himself through his monster's eyes later in the book, when the monster is peering through the window at Frankenstein working on the female monster. Both times, Frankenstein is able to have some important introspective realization. Watching/the monster's gaze seems to be pretty important throughout the story (I personally got some goosebumps whenever Frankenstein turned to see those dreaded eyes peering at him). The important thing to note is that, even with all this Gothic imagery and visual symbolism, they story may not be horrifying to the modern reader because it is not presented in a medium which is visually stunning/appealing--we're used to having some spooky music and some fancy camera work tell us where the jumpy parts in a story come out (like it was described in Skin Shows). Instead, the perverse departures from an otherwise very close reality (for people of the time) are what give the story its "creep factor".