Dr. Frankenstein, and the Great Mary Shelley

AND HOW A MONSTER IS CREATED, NOT BORN

The First time I read Frankenstein was as an eight grade reading assignment. Of course, I knew about the story - the Monster created by a mad scientist from the body parts of many. It sounded as horrifying as a horror tale should.

But reading it, I realized it actually wasn't.

The next time I read Frankenstein, I was in English Literature AP my senior year in high school. And then I learned about the backstory to the creation of the novel. I learned about Mary Shelley, and her husband and author friends. I learned how young and clever she was. I learned that it was, practically, a fluck turned classic.

Reading the novel, everything I thought I knew about Frankenstein changed. Beyond the tried and true "the book was better" in referencing the movies, the whole story changed. Firstly, and what really blew my mind, was that the Monster wasn't a monster.

What is a Monster? How do we define what to classify as horror and scary and unsafe?

And the answer is: Being Different.

I wouldn't often think to link Frankenstein with racism, but let's go there.

* Dr. Frankenstein's lack of planning

* Dr. Frankenstein's morals

* The Creature's Life

* Frankenstein Today

Not So Smart

Dr. Franksenstein was unquestionably, a brilliant man. It wasn't his intent to harm, that caused our now commonplace conception of him as a "mad" man, but his lack of planning. This was a man that took two years to piece together what he thought would be a perfect creation. But he didn't have the foresight to think about what exactly he was going to do if his experiment actually worked.

This is, sadly enough, true of a lot of people in real life. They don't think about the consequences of their actions. They don't think ahead to what the impacts to others would be from such actions. Having a strong emotional connection to an idea can be wonderful, but it can also be dangerous. You can love what you do, and you should, but you have to retain the responsibility that your results will have.

Morals Define Us

Dr. Frankenstein would have probably not found himself painted into the proverbial corner, had he had himself some boundaries. And what gives us boundaries? Morals.

Written in a time and place that was decidedly simplier (in terms against today's expectations and resolves) and harsher (because seriously, no internet was just one of their problems), morals haven't really changed much. If you define your morals by your religion, most of which have been established for centuries, then your sense of right and wrong should be pretty common sense.

Essentially, all the rules grind down to the "Golden Rule" - Treat Others Like You Would Like To Be Treated.

We had these posted on the walls in Elementary school, and discussed often. Why do we not interrupt each other? Why do we not touch others or their belongings? Why do we say please and thank you?

Clearly, Dr. Frankenstein's sense of right and wrong was a bit askew. Perhaps he didn't consider that his creation would be the recipient of actions not becoming of any man. Including the doctor's own actions of disgust and rejection, the Creature was shown nothing but the overreactions and anger of those he encountered.

Often times, when the themes of the novel are discussed, responsiblitly takes the main focus. It was Frankenstein's responsiblity to stick around for his creation - his child, you could argue - instead of abadonning him the moment he was, in fact, alive. It was his responsibility to show the Creature the world around him. The doctor failed in establishing his own title in the beings life; and in failing to do so, had one chosen for him. Instead of a creator, a teacher, a mentor and guide, Dr. Frankenstein became the Creature's enemy.

To Be or Not To Be, and What's In A Name?

The Creature was given a harsh start into his new life. He was one of a kind, and he wasn't completely aware of this. I wouldn't even want to begin going into the psychological ramifications of what the Creature would be going through, but suffice to say nothing good.

In pure speculation, as is fiction, we have to assume that had Dr. Frankenstein taken the time to form some kind of connection with the Creature, and then taken the time to prepare the town and world, the Creature would have assimilated in some form. But let's be honest - he would have always been outcasted.

What is a Monster? Is it something hideous looking? Is it something that cannot communicate? Is it something that is violent? Is it something that can be taught?

When we read or watch works of fiction, it's often easy enough to spot out the good guys and the bad guys, because we're made to see things into these two categories. And while this is a concept that in its simplicity can be explained to a child, it is not the reality of life.

Sometimes, there is no good or bad. Sometimes, there are good people with bad actions. Sometimes, bad people hide behind good actions. We are left confused and fearful of trusting. Do we not cringe at the news, especially in today's day and age, and shake our heads to the actions of politians and celebrities? Do we not spread like wildfire over social medias to condemn actions and words a person takes? How do we know who is right? We have our own moral system to judge against, and hopefully its one where we love one another and look to help our neighbor and care for our world, animals, and children. We have our laws and our court rooms and we preach our justice. We turn blind eyes to white lies and things that make us uncomfortable.

Would the Creature be treated better or worst in today's age? Back then, if you were different, you were likely institutionalized. Nowaways, there are more treatments and therapies, but plenty of people are still stigmatized. Mental health, deformaties, obesity, speech impediments, illnesses, and the list goes on. People are ridiculed, bullied, attacked, even killed. Not much different than the treatment given to the Creature then.

Frankenstein Today

Today, The Creature is commonly known as Frankenstein, or Frankenstein's Monster for those with a bit of knowledge. In the work itself, he is nameless. For a moment, he called himself "Adam"; but it was in reference to his being the doctor's creation, like in the Bible. Dr. Frankenstein thought of him differently, calling him "devil", "thing", "creature" and "demon" to name a few. Not exactly a foundation for trust and enlightenment.

Today, "Frankenstein" is a monster. A creature much like a zombie, which limited speech and powered by rage. Within the novel, however, the Creature is a sensitive, thoughtful being. He is scared. He is seeking answers and companionship. He is alone and unwanted. He is a being, but is he a human being? Can he connect with the humans around him? Would he be a trivialized pet? A circus act? A lab rat?

Can you not see, then, why the Creature turned out the way he did? The way he was treated, how could he know better? When people are treated like they are less than human, it's hard for them to see themselves as something greater.

And So, It Is

So you see, monsters aren't defined by the birth of the being. People aren't dirt, they're not things, and they're not monsters. They shouldn't be objectified or downgraded. Differences are amazing. Differences make us unique. Differences are what keeps this world interesting.

Who's to say that the Creature couldn't have gone on to learn and be a part of society? Who is to say that he couldn't have contributed something meaningful? Sure, it's fiction, but Mary Shelley was clearly smart enough to depict the troubling parts of human nature. Some people are more prone to overreacting, and then justifying their actions. Some people enjoying hurting others and causing them fear.

I saw a great adaptation a little while back, from a great show, "The Librarians", that finally allowed the Creature to be his own man. It was a nice change of pace.

There are many different interpretations of the story, and the character, around nowadays. The most famous is the Boris Karloff likeness in the 1931 film Frankenstein, from which the "modern" view of his derives. Most of these reaffirm the stigma placed on the creature within the story, without conveying his true, sensitive character. When you pick and chose which pieces of a person you share, you leave out a part of them. A character, like a person is a whole being, and this character traits are important in understanding the Creature.

Frankenstein deserves a second and three passing. What it has become is something that Mary Shelley could never have imagined. Her character was probably not meant to be sympathized, but as time passes and there are little change in how people treat those that are dissimilar to them, I think there are clear connections that can be made, and hopefully learned from.

Here are a few links you can check out, to get a little more insight into the characters, the story, and everything in between. But, to quote "Reading Rainbow", "You don't have to take my word for it." Read the novel for yourself and make your own insights.

Happy Frankenstein Appreciation Day!

Victor Frankenstein Character Analysis @Art of Manliness

Frankenstein @ Brainpop

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: Timeless Lessons for Modern Man an essay