The Cultural Gutter

dangerous because it has a philosophy

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." -- Oscar Wilde

The Specter of Frankenstein

Carol Borden
Posted October 11, 2012

the adam of his laborsThe specter of Victor Frankenstein’s creature has been haunting me, confronting me with the horror if his creation and inherent in his being. He stalks me, in his way, as surely as he stalked Victor. Perhaps he’s just been curiously peering at me, as the creature watched humans in Mary Shelley’s novel, emulating our virtues and vices, learning our sins.  I spy him in the tv show Dexter. He gazes from racks at the comic book store. In the pages of The Punisher (Marvel, 2010), Morbius the Living Vampire transforms the titular vigilante Frank Castle into Franken-Castle. In Frankenstein: Agent of S.H.A.D.E. (DC, 2012), he works for a super secret organization. I even see him in Adventure Time. He’s most mournful in Bernie Wrightson’s illustrations for his edition of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus (Dark Horse, 2008) and Wrightson’s collaboration with Steve Niles, Frankenstein, Alive, Alive! #1 (IDW Publishing, 2012), which continues Frankenstein’s story after Frankenstein concludes.

And, yes, I call the creature, “Frankenstein;” and yes, in Shelley’s title, Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus, Victor is both “Frankenstein” and “Prometheus.” It pains me to refer to Frankenstein as Victor Frankenstein does, “daemon,” “vile insect” (Shelley, 104), and “abhorred devil” (107), or as Frankenstein calls himself, “creature.” I find the name’s new ambiguity is fascinating and fruitful, but I understand readers frustrated by what they see as a conflation of creature and creator, monster and man–one that might obscure how Victor wronged his creation.  In fact, Niles and Wrightson’s Frankenstein says: “’Frank?’ ‘Frankenstein?’ It’s just a stage name, like ‘Tad the Frog Boy’ or ‘Shelly the Turtle Girl.’ In reality, I do not have a name. My creator never gave me one”  (1).

But is a creator the only one who can bestow a name? Must we all cleave to Victor’s design? I am not on Victor’s side in this. I don’t care to be complicit in his sins. In a fit of enthusiastic mania, Victor created a person and, horrified, fled and tried to forget him. But that person still exists and Victor’s “child” should share his name, though Victor denies him. Hell, my pets have all shared mine, and they never read Milton’s Paradise Lost or understood themselves as alternately Adam or Lucifer cast out by a neglectful god. (i.e., me). So I call him, Frankenstein, not just out of current usage, but because it’s a name he’s due.

I first encountered Frankenstein in James Whale’s films, Frankenstein and The Bride of Frankenstein.* Boris Karloff’s Frankenstein was mine, and that made it hard for me to see Wrightson’s version, no matter how beautifully drawn, as the creature. But I’ve come to appreciate Wrightson’s depiction. Following Shelley’s description, his creature is elongated, with long black hair and papery skin taut over his face. Frankenstein is much the same in first issue of Frankenstein, Alive, Alive!  The art’s gorgeous, and it’s interesting to see his use of marker–overlaying strokes for texture–after his Frankenstein featured very fine penwork mimicking etchings. In our time, we are fascinated by the juicy dead. In Shelley’s, the semblance  of (un)death was often an unwrapped mummy. And so, paired with Shelley’s book, Wrightson’s lanky, desiccated almost mummified monster is perfect.

In the novel, Victor is obsessed with knowing the secret of life.  Combining knowledge he learns studying at the University of Ingolstadt with his study of scientists and alchemists like Cornelius Agrippa, Albertus Magnus and Paracelsus (Shelley, 32), Victor creates his own human being. Horrified by his creature’s appearance, Victor flees his apartment.  For his part, Frankenstein flees Ingolstadt, eventually learning to speak and read. Maddened by shunning and loneliness, Frankenstein kills Victor’s young brother and then confronts Victor, demanding a female companion. At first, Victor, feeling some responsibility for his creation, agrees. Later, he destroys the companion’s body, believing that if she accepted Frankenstein, they might rampage together, or that she, as a “thinking and reasoning animal, might refuse to comply with a compact made before her creation” (187) and Frankenstein would become murderous. Enraged at the betrayal, Frankenstein kills again and Victor himself becomes vengeful. Each act of anger and hate, springing from grievous pain, metastasizes, revealing the malignancy of revenge.

Incidentally, I appreciated Victor’s realization that the “bride” would be a thinking, feeling person who might reject their gentlemen’s agreement. In that, Shelley’s Victor is wiser than Whale’s. In Whale’s The Bride of Frankenstein, the utter horror of being given life, thought and feeling, only to be a gift for someone else, without choice or free will, is overshadowed by Frankenstein’s pain at her rejection. It makes Frankenstein’s “We belong dead” murder-suicide at the end of Bride of Frankenstein not so much sad as horrific to me. Killing his mate isn’t a result that Victor considers in Frankenstein, but it’s an anagnorisis in line with what Frankenstein learned from Victor. It’s also a sly parallel with arranged marriages, but then Mary Shelley’s mother was concerned with vindicating the rights of women.** I would love to see Wrightson’s Bride, though.

Like much of my preferred horror–as indicated by my use of a fancy Aristotelian term above–Frankenstein is based in tragedy rather than morality plays (as, say, most slashers are). Frankenstein and Victor are tragic antagonists.  Both are driven by passions they cannot or will not control. Both have singular talents that could benefit humankind, but instead they trap each other in a morass of vengeance, grief and rage. They mirror each other and create and recreate each other throughout the book.  Frankenstein suffers from wrath and tries to make others suffer as he does. Caught up in hubris, Victor creates a person and that act leads to ruin. But, unlike the common perception of the story, his sin isn’t “tampering with God’s domain” by creating life. Victor Frankenstein’s fatal flaw is not taking responsibility for the life he creates. He makes his monster not just in his laboratory, but in his rejection of his creation.  He is, in short, a terrible father.

Which is why I felt Frankenstein gazing at me from the casement (187) as I rewatched five seasons of Dexter for an article last spring.*** Harry is also a terrible father and Dexter also calls himself “a monster.” In a first viewing, it’s easy to accept Dexter’s naïve presentation of Harry as a benefactor who provided Dexter–a nascent serial-killer–with a code that saved both innocent lives and himself.  Seen again, it’s clear that Dexter is as much Harry’s creation as Frankenstein is Victor’s.  In teaching Dexter to channel his urge into killing only killers and to avoid getting caught, Harry made a monster. Would Dexter be a monster if Harry hadn’t decided he would be one?  Was Frankenstein always a monster?  Would Frankenstein have killed if Victor hadn’t rejected him?  And if Victor had cared for Frankenstein, would Victor, believing he was raising a monster, create one? Like Victor, Harry realized the horror of what he had done when faced with Dexter killing a human. Unlike Victor, Harry killed himself. Now Harry haunts Dexter, appearing to give him advice, as Victor haunts Frankenstein in Frankenstein, Alive, Alive! and Frankenstein’s victims haunt Victor unto death.

*I saw the opening of Andy Warhol’s Flesh for Frankenstein way too young. Just his appearance was enough to make me cry and my parents shut the tv off.
**It’s easy to see a lot of Mary Wollstonecraft‘s concerns in Frankenstein: the balance of emotion and thought/body and mind; the centrality of family and friends; the emphasis on education and the ability of all people, monsters and ladies alike, to be educated and to reason.
***It kinda makes me want to ask the writers just how much of an influence Frankenstein has been on Dexter.

~~~

“Hateful day when I received life!”  Carol Borden exclaimed in agony.  “Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even YOU turned from me in disgust? God, in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; by my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblance. Satan had his companions, fellow devils, to admire and encourage him, but I am solitary and abhorred.”

 


Comments

9 Responses to “The Specter of Frankenstein”

  1. Carol Borden
    October 12th, 2012 @ 5:13 pm

    Richard Sala’s The Hidden is a nice take on Frankenstein without being explicitly a Frankenstein story: http://hereliesrichardsala.blogspot.com/2010/09/hidden-sneak-preview.html

    Love Sala’s art.

  2. The Specter of Frankenstein | Mysterious Order of the Skeleton Suit
    October 15th, 2012 @ 2:39 pm

    […] FULL ARTICLE This entry was posted in Comics. Bookmark the permalink. ← Barnali […]

  3. Chris Szego
    October 15th, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

    The recent stage production by Danny Boyle made me realize for the first time that the story was a tragedy, rather than an adventure/ horror / morality play / what-have-you. It was also a stinging indictment on Victor, and through him the entire cohort of people who set devastating events in motion then run away when the damage starts piling up.

    Plus, Benedict Cumberbatch!

  4. Carol Borden
    October 16th, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

    i still have to see that, chris. i know it was simulcast, so i assume there’s a video somewheres.

    if you haven’t read the book, i think you’d really like it. you hear a lot about its importance, but not about the quality of mary shelley’s writing.

  5. The Specter of Frankenstein | Monstrous Industry
    March 18th, 2013 @ 5:23 pm

    […] (This piece was originally published at The Cultural Gutter) […]

  6. A Monster Saved From Monster’s Ways : The Cultural Gutter
    August 15th, 2013 @ 1:43 pm

    […] In both of The Mummy films, Imhotep was all about eternal love, and how scary that might be.* Frankenstein ached with the rejection of both parent and mate. It’s easy to see The Wolf Man as reflecting […]

  7. The Shrieking Horror of Castle Lemongrab : The Cultural Gutter
    October 11th, 2013 @ 5:15 pm

    […] *I’m using Frankenstein to refer to Victor or Henry or Baron Frankenstein’s creation. I explain my thoughts around calling him Frankenstein in “The Specter of Frankenstein.” […]

  8. Mad Science Throwdown: Princess Bubblegum vs Frankenstein : The Cultural Gutter
    March 6th, 2014 @ 1:04 pm

    […] written before that Victor Frankenstein is a terrible father because he does not take responsibility for his […]

  9. The Shrieking Horror of Castle Lemongrab | Monstrous Industry
    September 20th, 2014 @ 2:51 pm

    […] Henry or Baron Frankenstein’s creation. I explain my thoughts around calling him Frankenstein in “The Specter of Frankenstein.” **Lemonjon chooses to do so, sort of like a giant Lemon-Jesus, proclaiming: “Is this the rumored […]

Leave a Reply





  • Support The Gutter

  • The Book!

  • Of Note Elsewhere

    Comics Alliance suggests seven Star Wars comics to read before Disney makes them disappear. (Including a comic by one of Comics Editor Carol’s favorite creative teams–Corinna Bechko and Gabriel Hardman). “Starting in 2015, Disney’s handing the publishing of any and all new Star Wars comics over to Marvel Comics, with an all new, optimized-for-corporate-synergy canon that will spread across all their media platforms. Anything that’s not a movie (especially one of the Original Trilogy movies), or a Clone Wars cartoon, will be unceremoniously Order 66-ed out of existence, giving future filmmakers a clean-ish slate to make movies (and money) on. But what about all those Dark Horse comics? That’s where we come in with 7 Dark Horse Star Wars comics you should track down before they disappear.”

    ~

    At the New York Observer, Ashley Steves writes about Craig Ferguson’s The Late, Late Show. “No one could ever prepare you for watching an episode of Ferguson’s Late Late Show. A friend could not sit you down and explain it (“Well, it’s really meta and deconstructive and there’s a horse”). There was really no good way to recommend it. It was something you discovered and became a part of. You had to stumble upon it on your own, perhaps restless or bored or simply curious while flipping through channels when your eye quickly caught some of the madness. And that’s the best part. It was an unexpected gift. At its worst, it could still send you to bed grinning and comforted. At its best, it was art. It was silly and fun and truly not like any other late night show.”

    ~

    At Comics Alliance, Chris Sims interviews Ed Brubaker about his work on Batman, Gotham Central and Catwoman. “When I look back at [Catwoman], I’m so proud of the first 25 issues of that book, when I felt like everything was firing on all cylinders. I probably should’ve left when Cameron Stewart left instead of sticking around. That’s one of those things I look back at and think “Ah, I had a perfect run up until then!” (Incidentally, Comics Editor Carol’s first piece for the Gutter was about Brubaker’s first 25 issues of Catwoman).

    ~

    At Sequential Art, Greg Carpenter writes a lovely piece about Charles Schulz’ Peanuts. “After only two installments, Schulz had solidified the rules for his comic strip.  Random acts of cruelty would punctuate this irrational world, and Schulz’s trapped little adults would be forced to act out simulations of human behavior, using hollow gestures to try to create meaning in a universe where no other meaning was evident.  If Shakespeare’s Macbeth had been a cartoonist, the results of his daily grind, “tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,” might have looked somewhat similar—each character a “poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage” until he or she was heard from no more.”

    ~

    The Smithsonian Magazine has a gallery of US spy satellite launches. “Just as NASA creates specially designed patches for each mission into space, [National Reconnaissance Office] follows that tradition for its spy satellite launches. But while NASA patches tend to feature space ships and American flags, NRO prefers wizards, Vikings, teddy bears and the all-seeing eye. With these outlandish designs, a civilian would be justified in wondering if NRO is trolling.”

    ~

    At The Guardian, Keith Stuart and Steve Boxer look at the history of PlayStation.“Having been part of the late 80s rave and underground-clubbing scene, I recognised how it was influencing the youth market. In the early 90s, club culture started to become more mass market, but the impetus was still coming from the underground, from key individuals and tribes. What it showed me was that you had to identify and build relationships with those opinion-formers – the DJs, the music industry, the fashion industry, the underground media.” (via @timmaughan)

    ~

  • Spilling into Twitter

  • Obsessive?

    Then you might be interested in knowing you can subscribe to our RSS feed, find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter or Tumblr.

    -------

  • Weekly Notifications

  • What We’re Talking About

  • Thanks To

    No Media Kings hosts this site, and Wordpress autoconstructs it.

  • %d bloggers like this: