Humanity within the Monstrous

First option

I noticed that all the victims of Dracula were women and that Jonathan, who Mina later married, in the beginning was the prey of the three women but not of Dracula. Even Renfield, the guy in the asylum, was calling for his “master”, which I assumed was Dracula, was ignored. He even yelled, as if to Dracula, you promised eternal life to me “Yet you give eternal life to her”, meaning Mina. Dracula is portrayed as a monster, preying on women, and its also shown as a form of desire for the women. Lucy, Mina’s friend, was the prey of Dracula in a way that was sexual and she also said It was like losing control, that she couldn’t stop herself. Mina can see his monstrous characteristics and yet see his humanity. At first it is his appearance as human, a form of desire for her, that makes her ignore the monstrous characteristics and see only the humanity with in him. But when she finds out he is a vampire, despite knowing he killed Lucy, she decided to join him in the monstrous, thinking that within the monstrous there is still humanity and she could live with him happily. But Van Helsing and his men, were not shown to lack control of their desires, as the women were. Van Helsing and his men, were shown to be brutal, killing at first Lucy for becoming something she didn't choose, blaming everything on Dracula rather than their refusal to see the humanity within what they perceived as monstrous, and later attempting to destroy Dracula, but seeing their actions had become what they were fighting, they had become monstrous, they stopped attacking Dracula, and I especially find it interesting that it was Mina, standing in front of Dracula to defend him, that spurred their realization of their monstrous behavior, and perhaps they finally saw the humanity withing the monster Dracula.

AHS : COVEN

The evolution of Frankenstein's monster has evolved so much over the year but has consistently stayed green, bolted, and stitched. While this is the "normal" adaptation of the monster, there are numerous other examples of the monster that are more realistic and make more sense. In the show American Horror Story: Coven, the character Kyle Spencer makes a perfect example of a more modern adaptation of the monster. The character Kyle is killed in a bus accident and is reincarnated through the magic of the coven by sewing together various pieces of different men, with Kyle's face being the only original part of his body that is used. Through creating the "new" Kyle, the girls in the coven use different parts of other men to basically create the "perfect man" just as Dr. Frankenstein attempts to do in the novel. One important note to add is that themes of sexuality come into play in recreating this monster, as the girls use another man's "large penis" to ultimately make him the perfect man. In this adaptation of the monster, Frankenstein becomes sexualized and a fetish for the women to please themselves. After he begins coming back to life, Kyle is essentially brain dead and can barely speak - using grunts, moaning, and screaming to broadcast his being upset that he's alive again. This is much UNLIKE, the monster in the novel and more similar to the monster in the 1931 adaptation of Frankenstein. Kyle lacks the ability to communicate and more importantly has no desire to be alive. Touching on why the name Frankenstein is firmly tied to the monster, I think pop culture would be to blame for the confusion between the two, and up until this class I always thought the monster was named Frankenstein. Movies like the Bride of Frankenstein and halloween costumes that are labelled as "Frankenstein" further this confusion. Rather than considering that Frankenstein is the actual monster of the story, people automatically assume that the monster he created is the actual monster.

Movies vs Novel

Green is culturally considered as a color of evilness. The looks of Frankenstein is very evil like compare or Frankenstein’s monster in general. Because it is easy to remember or catch people’s attention, Frankenstein-look is often considered as the major. As well as the Caliban in the Shakespeare's play, the actual visual has the significant impact on the people’s memory. When Frankenstein visually came out in the movie or play at the first time, the image was created by the author, director, designer, and all other art staffs to make a final and ultimate image of Frankenstein. It is also tricky comparing reading a novel. Reading a novel does not give readers any limits. Readers image the world of the novel by following the author's words that describe the lighting, cutture, interior and exterior of the building, smell, taste, visual, and many other senses. On the other hand, once people look the visual image, people easily remember the image, but it is very hard to forget or recreate the image by themselves from the beginning. Like Caliban, because of the designers’ great work, no one can image other Frankenstein to recognize it as him anymore.

This is why book lovers do not like movie version of the novel or the second or third serious of the movies. Movies are very fun, but the reading novel always has more fantacies and stories rather than movies.

Frankenstein's Identity

Option #2:

When I think of Frankenstein I now think of the monster’s creator, Victor Frankenstein. This is of course because I read the book before. Before I ever read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and learned the actual identity of the monster, I also thought the name referred to a green-skinned, square-headed monster with bolts in his neck. Even now the image of a giant, grotesque monster made of stitched together body parts still lingers when I hear the name. When the monster first awakens, Victor describes it as having “yellow skin scarcely [covering] the work of muscles and arteries beneath” (p.35). He continues to describe the monster’s “watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set” (p.35). This description appears to be more of a corpse than any kind of living creature. The monster from the book was something horrid, but also capable of thought and able to form connections like a human being. I think the reason why the image of the monster has developed from such a conflicting, not-quite-human description to that of something slow and dumb is because of fear; the fear of the unknown and at the same time the fear of potentially relating to such a creature. We fear what is different and so we cast it aside and treat it purely as a monster. We also fear how dangerously close it comes to being considered human, so we remove its human aspects and describe it only as a monster. Victor also feared what he had created and so destroyed the potential mate for the monster. He feared what would happen if this creature was allowed to become more human and experience companionship.

I think the reason why the name Frankenstein is so firmly connected to the monster rather than its creator is because the monster embodies what Victor has become. Just as Victor plays God in creating life, his creation plays God by taking life. As the monster is alienated from society for being different, Victor’s secret starts to alienate him from his family. And, of course, in the end Victor destroys the creature’s mate. This is reflected by the monster’s action in killing Victor’s wife. Through the story, Victor’s transformation into the monster becomes clear as in the end he becomes the one obsessed with taking revenge on the monster.

Why Frankenstein...

We have learned that monsters don't have a place in society. They can sometimes be shapes, thoughts, feelings. They are there just to cause havoc. Victors monster was no different. Shelley does not actually truly describe what the monster looks like. In her book she goes into some details but not a lot. I think as humans trying to understand the monster we have to give them a face. Give them a body and a look to try and "normalize" them. Even if sometimes the look is different and scary, giving them something to be, makes it easier to understand. This is why I believe that the look of the monster has changed. It changes with our society and our imaginations.

The name is another thing. Shelley does not give the monster a name. Victor Frankenstein is only the creator. In her book, Shelley sometimes calls the monster a creature, a demon, but never a true name. I think this is true with most monsters. They are all just monsters. Monsters do not fit into any category. They don't have anything that belongs to them. Yet for us to be able to "understand" them we feel the need to give them a name. Another thing to help them seem like something that we can some day hope to understand. Which is why I think that although the monster doesn't have a name - Frankenstein is often attached to it. If it were to remain nameless the monster would be just that much more of a terrifying phenomenon and as humans we seek to lower that wall and make things level at a place that we can understand.  

Adaptation of Frankenstein's monster

Clearly after reading Shelley's Frankenstein the monster that Dr. Frankenstein created has changed quite a bit. I had never known the origin or the real story behind Frankenstein's monster until I read the book just last week. It is not what I had thought at all. I had seen the monster in some cartoons when I was younger and also in Van Helsing (the 2004 film) but they were quite different from the book. After reading the book I actually felt sympathetic towards this monster. It was not his fault that he was created hideous, and that all he wanted was some affection. Yea, he turned into this killing machine but that was only after he was rejected by everybody he was ever in contact with. In the Van Helsing film he was created for evil and to be used by Dracula. He does go into hiding just like in the book, but unlike the book version Frankenstein's monster is not even close to being as intelligent as Shelley portrayed him. In the book, he learns to speak quite fluently and eloquently in no other representation of him have I seen this before. So that is most certainly one of the biggest things that has changed about the monster, as well as how he takes revenge on his creator. Another thing that has changed is that the monster is typically referred to as Frankenstein. Whenever someone says Frankenstein people will immediately think of the monster rather than Victor. Even the name of this blog site is called Frankenstein with the picture of the monster as the back ground. One reason I feel that it is this way is that people are just too lazy to call it Frankenstein's monster since it does not have an actual name. Also the name Frankenstein itself just sounds monstrous so it makes it easy to link the two together.

First Impressions Last a Lifetime

When it comes to Frankenstein I and I would assume most people always just think of Frankenstein's monster as the typical green skinned monster with bolts in his neck and walks with stiff legs and arms. I always knew that there were older more classic versions of the story and the monster and that the green skinned monster wasn't necessarily what was intended but quite frankly I never really cared too much because that green monster is just what the modern day culture and society associate with the name Frankenstein. I think that one reason that this change occurred is because typically monsters are associated with Halloween which is typically a kids holiday. Everyone remembers getting excited to dress up and run around getting candy from houses and staying up late. So when it comes to Halloween a lot of classic monsters have to be censored in order to be more kid friendly. Especially after taking this class you can see that process happen with all kinds of monsters (witches, werewolves, vampires, Frankenstein's monster). All of them have become much more kid friendly so growing up that's just how we see those monsters because basically that's how we have seen them ever since we were born. Specifically with Frankenstein the monster changed from a very gruesome creature made of multiple body parts too a much more easily imaginable man simply with green skin. When it comes to why the name Frankenstein is so firmly tied to the monster I think that the simple fact that it is just easier to say the name Frankenstein in reference to the monster because once again we grow up just hearing the name Frankenstein and immediately the monster is what pops up in our mind. I think the fact that in reality the monster is nameless just makes it even easier to view and classify him as a monster even though in the original story he is not the only monstrous character

Dracula Representing the upper class

First let me just say I am glade we are getting to watch the film Dracula in class. It was on TV every Halloween when I was in high school, however I never was able to watch the entire movie all the way through.  I either fall asleep half way through or I end up only seeing the end of it.  Ok now back to the assignment.

As for what Dracula represents, he would be the upper class.  He has servants of the night, wears the finest robes, and has enough money to buy a bunch of property in London. These attributes are very common in the upper class.   Due to their wealth they are able to spend their money on whatever they want.  Unlike others in the upper class, Dracula is using his wealth in order to be near the woman he thinks is his wife reincarnated.  This is unusual for the movie monster because he usually only thinks about himself, never about others.  There is also the representation of gender.  As for gender we know that he is male. However he participates in unusual behavior for males.  He has multiple relations with other women one of which he gets caught in the act by the women he loves.  This behavior is seen as not normal although most men today have multiple partners before they begin a committed relationship making it somewhat more acceptable.  As for race he is the last of his kind. In a way this is similar to how Frankenstein's monster is the only one of his kind.  However unlike Frankenstein's monster who is ashamed of his monstrosity and wishes to be accepted, Dracula is proud of his race and is accepted by those that don't know he is a vampire. 

Vision is a Tool for the Beholder and a Weapon to the Viewed

Perhaps the easiest way to describe anything is by its appearance. One thinks of an apple as red, an orange as well... orange, the grass as green , and the sky as blue. It is much simpler to describe them this way because to go beyond that and say what they actually are is more difficult. This provides partial reasoning to both the first and second prompts.

The first thing that comes to most people's minds when they hear the word "monster" is a large, grotesque creature. Then their minds wander to why the monster is even scarier (it eats people, or does something else evil.) This has been an enormous hindrance in society - extremely so in the past, and still somewhat prevalent today. When you see somebody and they look different from you, one immediately forms a judgment just based on initial appearance. Even if that person is the nicest person in the world, one could overlook that due to first impressions. This led to racism and also is the reason behind Frankenstein's monster's struggles in the novel.

In order to show Frankenstein's monster as indeed monstrous in films, he had to look hideous, since that is what people would judge first. If he looked like a "normal" human being, it would take a while to form an opinion on him. The name Frankenstein has become almost synonymous with the monster for potentially a few different reasons. First, people often associate a weird name to someone who looks different. This even applies in today's society. Second, giving a name to a monster almost makes it less frightening. A nameless being terrorizing society is frightening, but if you can give it a name, everyone can at least direct their fear in one direction. The third less satisfying answer is just that some people aren't familiar enough with the story, so that is an easy name to remember.

I prefer the first reason because names really do play an impact on perception. I don't want to stray from the prompt, but if you think about it, you probably eat food that has a delicious-sounding name or might drive a car with a cool name. Even subconsciously, this probably makes it easier to cast out somebody as a monster if they have a "weird" name, such as Frankenstein.

Dracula: Who is the real monster?

After watching the first half of Coppola's Dracula in class, I was very interested in the story. I ended up torrenting buying a copy to watch in its entirety later that night. It was great!

In Frankenstein, we focused primarily on the theme of socioeconomics and class struggle. I believe that is also present in Dracula to an extent, however it is not the central theme. I saw Dracula through a few other lenses. What stood out most to me was the theme of gender inequality and suppression of women and their sexuality. From this angle, Dracula really doesn't fit the role of the monster but rather all the men of the piece who force these women to conform to the rigid standards of society. The women who chose to express their sexuality are portrayed as monsters who must be stopped. The 3 sisters and Lucy, for example, are all destroyed for their deviance, while Mina is fought over in a very materialistic manner. There is a constant subordination and materialization of women throughout the novel by both the westerners and Dracula. One of the more cited quotes of the novel (also said in this film adaptation), said by Dracula, reads "Your girls that you all love are min already; and through them you and others shall yet be mine."

I came across a collection of critical essays about the novel (ISBN 1550022792) that dove deeply into this theme. Pages 342-345 contain a great essay on this and can be viewed free via google books here: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1550022792

Dracula

Dracula from the movie that we have been viewing in class is a very interesting character to me. It is obvious that we can think of Dracula as a symbol of the upper class in this movie. The way that he is buying property all around London is a perfect example of this. He seems to have limitless wealth to do with what he pleases. This makes the main character a little uneasy as he starts to question why it is exactly that Dracula wants to acquire all of these properties. He also lives in this giant eccentric castle which is another display of wealth but at the same time helps in giving him his depiction as a monster. The castle is foreboding and makes him seem at first perhaps aloof to the common person but as the story goes on, there begins to be a much more ominous feeling about the castle. Another way of thinking about the character, although less prominent than class, is in terms of race. Dracula is Romanian, and as such some of his peculiarities are dismissed in the beginning as cultural differences. The character has to figure out the differences between his own culture and the Romanian culture to begin with so he can avoid upsetting his client, but it is too late that he realizes that there is something more sinister about Dracula than can be explained away with his ethnicity. This shows how his race can add to the grand picture of his monstrosity.

The evolution of the monster

In the novel Frankenstein, the monster is described to have yellow skin and white teeth.  This was a legitimate description, and readers in 1818 were much more familiar with the appearance of dead bodies.  The monster evolved into a green color because green is associated with rotten, moldy things.  Society in 1931 was much more distant from the deceased.  Society, as a whole, didn’t know exactly what to expect, therefore it was acceptable to change the skin color to green.  The bolts in the monsters neck could have been added because of the advances in medicine.  Limbs were successfully being reattached and moviegoers needed distance from reality. 

Frankenstein’s name is so firmly attached to the monster for a few reasons.  Frankenstein, himself, is a monster for the way he treats the monster, neglecting him and calling him names.  Frankenstein is also the one who discovered this “technology” therefore; it must be named after him.  He did not give the monster his name, but society tends to call things by the name of the creator/discoverer, especially in the scientific fields of study. The least likely option is just simple oversight, like our class did with the iclicker quiz question.

The Evolution of Frankenstein.

As noted in option 2 when I think of frankenstein I immediate think of a dumb slow brute of a monster who exists simply to destroy.  I'll admit I've never seen a frankenstein movie or read a book before this class so I don't know if he's ever portrayed that way.  None the less this was the image in my mind and it had to come from somewhere. 

The monster from Shelley's Frankenstein book could overall be seen as a "good guy."  Sure he killed people but he did so because of how he was treated.  Not just for the sake of killing.  As an example he killed Dr. Frankenstein's wife on their wedding night because Frankenstein refused to build his monster a mate of his own.  So why do I have the image in my head of just a dumb evil brute?

The main reason for this is the fear of the monster.  The monster is different and threatening.  This gives it reason to be feared.  Think back to the witch hunts.  They were different, they had powers, and thus they were feared.  This logic lead to them being put to death.  The same principle can be applied to Frankenstein's monster.  He was created from the dead so hes obviously different.  At least in my mind he has extra human strength which makes him something to be feared.  As a result just like witches we don't have to view him as a person who's treated unjustly.  We can simply view him as an evil monster that want's to kill.  This is exactly the image that's in my mind when I think of Frankenstein.

Frankenstein's transformations, and his namesake

     The transformation of Frankenstein's monster that is portrayed in Shelley's novel to it's other various incarnations can easily be attributed to the style and culture of the era in which the adaptation of the original was done. The 1931 film adaptation that popularized the Frankenstein monster that we all know today, yet the character was different in both physical appearance and on an intellectual level. These changes can be attributed to the desired effect of how the audience perceives and feels towards the monster. For example in the film, the monster is slow and stupid, but is evil in nature because Frankenstein's assistant procured a criminal brain for the monster. In the novel however, the monster starts out as a blank slate, and his emotions and thoughts that develop are a product of his environment and the people he interacts with. This change greatly changes the underlying narrative and our perception of not only the monster, but also who is responsible for him becoming a monster.
     The name Frankenstein is so firmly tied to the monster in my opinion, as a result of his upbringing by his creator, Victor Frankenstein. Frankenstein created the monster, therefore he is associated with it as a father figure along with being the creator. It's only natural that the creation of a father figure share his name. Also, the name serves a reminder to the reader as to who is responsible for creating the monster. I mean that in not only the physical sense of creation, but the creation of a personality, feelings, and other traits that parents bestow upon their children. Frankenstein is largely responsible for what kind of a "person" the monster becomes.

On Frankenstein's depiction in modern culture.

Frankenstein's transformation and immortalization into modern culture is an interesting case of how a depiction in one form of media can overwrite the depiction shown in the original source. In the case of Frankenstein, it is well-known (or, well received) that Frankenstein is a slow, stupid, murderous monster, brought to life as a monster only capable of killing. In truth, Frankenstein is a monster brought to life with an innocent mind, not a mind filled with violence. In both the original novel and the 1931 film, Frankenstein reacts to events and situations with innocence; he sits and stands as his creator commands, plays with a small girl near the river, and reacts to a fire with fear, not anger. However, the monster's actions are misinterpreted by those around him; the very people who witnessed his birth think of his reaction to fire as an attack, resorting to locking the monster away. In the film, the doctor's assistant begins to regularly torment the monster with a torch, which he knows the monster fears. The anger and rage that the monster displays at this point is one of the most memorable moments of the film, and defines the plot in a new sense; this is what sticks in peoples minds when they think of Frankenstein. Not a innocent mind harassed and pushed to violence, but a violent and angry monster, born without the word of god and crafted from the parts of murderers. Over time, depictions of Frankenstein have changed, moving from the public perception of a slow, dull killer to...a slow, but friendly monster. For instance, The Munsters, a famous sitcom, has a Frankenstein-like monster star as the father of a "modern" family of monsters -- in this adaptation, he's known as Herman Munster. Herman may have the slow, lumbering stance of the famous monster, but the show focuses more on his traits as a father and a provider for his family. In so many other adaptations, Frankenstein is depicted in so many different media as a slow moving monster, but in recent times he is no longer depicted as a stupid or violent creature. He is slow, but to a comedic effect; instead, the creature is shown as a more kind version of himself, closer to how the novel laid him out to be.

The portrayal of Frankenstein's identity varied greatly between the novel in the book and the film, typical consequence. The biggest difference I noticed was the attitudes and values that Frankenstein showed through his actions. In the novel. more detail was noted in Frankenstein's journey, as he was stuck in between a monster and a man. The acts of compassion showed by Frankenstein in the novel show that the original purpose of this fiction was to determine what really makes something human. The movie, aided by cinematic affect, shows more of Frankenstein's battle to find a place where he can be safe and/or accepted, rather than his own journey in becoming an actual human, capable of empathy, thought and emotion.

Now He's Monstrous

The movie and the novel portray Frankenstein's monster in very different ways. In the novel Frankenstein's monster is very intelligent and teaches himself how to do things such as find food, speak, and read. The movie skips all this and shows the monster's throwing a little girl in a pond as his first appearance in town. In the movie the monster doesn't talk he just makes sounds and is shown to be aggressive for unknown reasons. In the book, it explains how the monster got to point where he didn't care to be good to people anymore. The book even had the monster saying that he wasn't a bad person to begin with. In the novel, Frankenstein's monster does good deeds for a family but once he showed himself to them she were frightened. Everything that the monster did that was good, no one cared for. All they saw was a monster. It took a lot of time for the monster to start turning into an actual monster in the novel. Humans treated him bad no matter if he was doing good or doing bad. He got to the point where he got sick of how he was being treated. Even his own creator thought he was evil and didn't give him a chance. This is when Frankenstein's monster started being violent. That is how the monster changed in the book. Over the years I feel like people tweaked what the monster actually was to make it seem more monstrous. Besides the monster's appearance, there wasn't anything monstrous about him in the beginning. The reason the name Frankenstein is so tied to the monster is because he is the creator. Frankenstein is who brought the monster to life. Frankenstein was so excited for his monster to come to life until it actually did. The monster never got a name because Frankenstein was so digested in what he had created. He didn't get a name because he was just a thing, a creature, not a human.

Same lesson, different reason

I think the most noticeable difference in the film and novel depictions of Frankenstein’s monster is that the portrayals give a different message to the audience. The message I want to focus on is the one concerning caution with regard to science and the creation of life.

In the novel, the monster is depicted as human in everything but its appearance (A strange thought, seeing as the body tends to be made from humans). The monster is shown as intelligent, he has emotions, it is eager to learn about society and language, he is shown as human. This is best shown by his conversation with the De Lacey family, especially the old man. Due to his blindness, when approached by the monster, the old man treats the monster as he would any other guest. This is starkly contrasted by the reaction of the people who can see the monster, whether it be the rest of the De Lacey family attacking him when they return, or the man that shot the monster after the monster saved the young girl, the people who see him cannot look past his appearance to see the humanity inside of him. While his actions are not justified, the monster’s revenge against Dr. Frankenstein and pursuit of a companion, along with the center of the story where the monster is given a chance to speak, we realize that Dr. Frankenstein failed the monster as his creator through his irresponsibility. He brought life to a sentient being in a form that would be rejected by society, and ignored the needs of the monster for companionship and understanding.

And then we have the film adaptation. In this, the monster is robbed of its humanity and the audience’s sympathy, instead preferring to blame the actions of the monster on a criminal’s brain instead of the failings of Dr. Frankenstein. While there is still a message of responsibility of science, it is no longer one of compassion, responsibility, and morality, instead the focus is misplaced on the dangers the monster presents. Instead of compassion from the audience, the monster is presented as something to be afraid of. Instead of rescuing a drowning girl, the monster is shown to be throwing the child into the lake, expecting her to float. The monster reacts in fear to the torch, and so it is decided it is a menace or a hazard to society. The monster is still responsible for murdering people of course. The monster kills Fritz because Fritz was scaring him with a torch, and the doctor because the doctor was dissecting him, thinking the monster dead. But we are never shown the monster’s humanity. It is shown as lesser, as animalistic, as inhumane. And so when the monster is in the windmill as the villagers light it on fire, they were removing a danger, they were afraid, they were justified. It was a flawed experiment.

And that is what changes the message for me. In the novel there is no doubt to me that Dr. Frankenstein was responsible for the monstrous actions, it was his failures in morality and compassion that led to the monster’s actions. In the film, it is just a lab accident, Fritz brought the wrong brain. Instead of raising the question of responsibilities and moral obligations to creations and scientific progress, we are instead given a reminder to read the label.

Everything Relates to American Horror Story

I think that the first reason why Frankenstein’s monster has changed appearances from Mary Shelley’s novel to the film Frankenstein is because people who created the film felt that the monster needed a distinct look. From reading the novel, you would or should know that Frankenstein’s monster is clearly not a green creature, but just a gruesome mash-up of human parts. This figure, although grotesque, is hard to replicate and doesn’t give the impression of monster. When most people think of a monster, they probably think of something off color, stitched up or broken, or a creature covered in blood. I think that if this novel came out in today’s world, the monster might actually be portrayed as exactly what the novel wants us to think that it is. I think this is because now people find monsters to be everywhere and as everything. An example of a monster that seems to be based off of Frankenstein’s monster would be the character Kyle. He is created by the witches in the movie and they do this by stitching together different parts of different guys to create the perfect guy and then bring him to life with their magic. This creature I see as a monster but he is not as ugly as the monster of Frankenstein in the film. This character also acts similarly to how Frankenstein’s monster acts. He has a lot of emotion and is conscious of what is happening around him, how every he is portrayed as dumb, and he does not want to continue, just like Mary Shelley’s monster. Basically, I think that Frankenstein’s monster changes throughout time because what people thinks is scary changes but no matter who the character is or how he changes physically, he still remains with the same scary persona. 

Not about Monsters

#2 OPITION

For me, I actually read the novel first before watched the movie of Frankenstein. The novel mainly tells the story about the scientist Frankenstein, including how he create the monster and the characteristic before it got mad about the human and after that. All narrative description shaped the monster as a kind monster with ugly faces, which caused people are afraid of him. After Frankenstein failed to keep his promise to get him a female partner, it changed to be evil and destroy the city to relieve his feeling. However, the movie “Frankenstein” followed the same story routine but seems to be more superficial, because it focus more on visual impact while the novel by Shelly has something deeper and profound to inform us.

  In the movie, the most memorable and impressive part is that the monster is so scary and ugly that everyone get scared of him. The scene that the monster destroy and kill is really impressing, but in my opinion, if you want to know more, or to say, know the authentic principle that the author want to tell you, you must read the novel. Without the image and scene, the novel provides me with the information about industrial revolution and the problems and opportunities that they were facing at that time. The story reflects Shelly’s worry about the rapid development of science and industrial. This is also the reason why Frankenstein, the name is firmly tied to the monster, but the monster remains nameless. Though it seems like the story is all about the monster, it actually provide inner meaning to warn people of pursing scientific development blindly will lead to some controversial tragedy. And this is presented by depicting the figure of Frankentein and all the effort and struggle of him.

A Cleaner Boundry

In response to the second prompt option,

Frankenstein's monster is arguably more human than any other characters in the earlier version of the novel. I think its image has changed to a more monstrous form to try fit the mold of what people view as a monster. An eloquent being gradually transitions into the monster it is know for because people do not like to look inward on themselves and ask what the differences between the human and the monster are. The very existence of a being that was created by unnatural means creates an identity crisis. Humanities method to counter this - the being has to be lesser, or unequal to humans. This identity crisis is furthered to an inexcusable extent when such a being is superior to humans in some ways. This transition into a  slow, dumb, conventional monstrous form seems to just be the embodiment of the idea of clear-cut differences between humans and the monsters we create. Take the YouTube link below, for example (a robot sings a song and its really unsettling). 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLy-AwdCOmI

Although there are other things occurring in this clip, I think the thing that disturbs me the most is the humanesque form it has. It’s almost human, but just slightly off. Robots should be robots, not humans, and I feel the same can be said for Frankenstein (the monster). The naming of the monster further illustrates this desire to separate the monster from humans by categorizing it. An unnamed monster is a bit nebulous whereas the name Frankenstein is specific and fits into a specific place.

The Creeper

For those of you who don't know, the Creeper is a monster from the Scooby Doo series Where are you Scooby Doo? His first appearance was in the 1970 Season 2 Episode 4 where he apparently had the ability to walk through walls and would rob the Carswell bank. In the end it turned out to be the president of the bank, Mr. Carswell. The Creeper however, had a green appearance and a large stature. He moved relatively slow and only said two words in the entire episode, "Paper," and "No." Here the Creeper is clearly inspired by the Frankenstein monster from the 1931 film. But the monster from the film is portrayed differently than in the novel. The film portrays him as slow and primitive. I think this is done to display the Frankenstein monster as more realistic. In the 30's the general public was more learned in medicine than in the late 1800's. Also with the story being set in the 1800s, and reanimation of corpses not having been achieved yet, screenwriters displayed the monster as more incomplete. This representation caught on and had repercussions to later generations of writers taking notes from Frankenstein. But if you show someone a picture of this generalization, most people know it as Frankenstein, when in the book the monster is never named. This I believe comes from the fact that it was Victor Frankenstein's creation. Therefore, in a symbolic sense, Victor was a monster. He was crazy and had this outlandish idea of bringing back dead tissue. In an essence, he embodied his inner monster (possibly a fear of the unknown/death) and created a living, breathing monster. On top of this, to westerners, the name Frankenstein simply sounds monstrous. The name is very fitting to the image displayed by the monster.