Frankenstein is probably the most popular horror icon in all of English literature, perhaps only rivaled by Dracula. When we usually think of Frankenstein, we think of either Boris Karloff or some bad rendition of the story. Suffice it to say, no one in popular culture actually talks about Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the novel that started it all. For those of you who have yet to read Mary Shelley’s novel (hint, read the original 1818 version, not the 1831), the story goes something like this: Victor Frankenstein manages to reanimate a corpse sutured together from various body parts. Horrified at his creation, Victor flees and leaves the ‘creature’ to discover the world alone. There are two main forms of interpretation when it comes to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. I will briefly go over them, and then give my own.
i. Frankenstein as God vs. Humanity
The first is the God/human parallel. This rather obvious parallel is that between Victor and God on the one hand, and the Frankenstein’s creature and Adam on the Other. There is tonnes of literature devoted to the analysis of this parallel. In the novel, the creature objects to his creator for having given him life (i.e. Adam/man’s objection to God). Victor, like God, has the power to give life, yet this power has horrifying consequences. The creature, having figured out that he is hideous and different than humans, curses Victor for having to live. Let’s think about this for a moment. If a God does exist, and he/she/it created life on earth, is he/she/it not responsible for human life (i.e. Adam and Eve)? The issue is, humanity never asked to live in the first place. This is the creature’s objection to Victor. Why did you give me life and the leave me? Why was I created only to suffer and feel pain? The monster is confronted with these questions, and in his rage, becomes a villainous murderer, much like the corruption of humanity in objection of God. Yet this analysis and form of interpretation is rather cliché and has been exhausted.
ii. Frankenstein as the confrontation of the other
More recently, the trendy interpretation is that of the confrontation of the other, in Shelley’s Frankenstein. Thanks to the Politically Correct trend in the 80s and 90s, Frankenstein’s monster can now be thought of as the social other (the being that is different from me/us). Simply put, Victor is human and the creature he unleashes on humanity, is, well, not. The creature is an abomination, a monster, or as Shelley puts it: a ‘wretch.’ The monster is the other, and as such symbolizes any and all forms of otherness or ‘othering’ (i.e. foreigners, immigrants, women, gays, lesbians, and any other minority group). Many commentators have pointed out that the way in which Victor reacts to the creature, is the common way of ‘othering.’ To put it more simply, Victor sees the creature as a hideous monster that needs to be destroyed, nothing more, nothing less. The creature becomes monstrosity embodied. Now, the point of this analysis is to show the fault of Victor. If only Victor could sympathize with the creature, understand him, there would be no conflict! This plea stems from the politically correct need for understanding, respect and tolerance. Victor should tolerate the differences between himself (humanity) and the creature (other), the differences should be understood, not condemned. In the novel, Shelley gives voice to the creature. In a radical move promoting of freedom of speech Shelley gives us the perspective of the creature, Victor hears the monster’s/other’s tale.
The only thing I have to add to the ‘Frankenstein as the confrontation of the other,’ is that those who use it to try to promote a politics of tolerance and cultural respect, fail to grasp the main point that Shelley makes. This interpretation, like the one before it (God/humanity), pins Victor against the creature via Otherness. This is the cornerstone of the politics of tolerance. We must understand, respect and tolerate those who we deem as Other, as different. What they stress is difference, and an affirmation of differences between people’s cultures, religions, traditions, etc. What the overlook is the fact that they are dealing with people. Instead of focusing on what makes us different from each other (and in turn, maintaining the act of othering, and the notion of the other), we should stress what makes us the Same. Which brings me to my own interpretation.
iii. Frankenstein as embodiment of Sameness
The shift in perspective from an emphasis on difference to the same gives us a much more compelling read of Frankenstein. While in the earlier interpretation, Frankenstein’s creature was seen as the radical embodiment of the other (and thus a token example of how a politics of correctness operates), in this focus on the Same we get something else. What do we mean when we say Victor and the creature are the same? It is simply that the two characters have more in common than the previous two interpretations let on. Both Victor and the creature have human attributes: ability to think, feel, desire, and perhaps the most human characteristic of all, self-consciousness. Both Victor and the creature have a degree of self-awareness that is usually reserved for human beings; on this account they have a basic level of sameness. Now an immediate reproach would be that such a basic level of similarity is trivial and does not refute the previous interpretations mentioned above. It may seem trivial, but I maintain that it is crucial. What makes us human is ultimately these attributes, we feel emotion, we have desires, dreams and ambitions, we think, and perhaps most importantly we question our own existence. Does the creature not possess all of these characteristics? Can we not say, then, that the creature is as much human as Victor? Let’s see what happens to the previous forms of interpretation if we keep the Sameness element in mind. What was before seen as a parallel between Victor/God and the monster/Adam now becomes a parallel between Victor/monster as both having a creator (i.e. God/Victor). That is, Victor Frankenstein’s creator is God (whether or not a actually God exists is irrelevant), and the creature’s creator is Victor. They are both mortal beings that were given life without their approval. The second interpretation (i.e. as a confrontation with the Other) becomes more interesting. While beforehand the creature (i.e. as the Other) was seen as something to be tolerated because of the differences, is now seen as something to be accepted. We can see this in the novel because there the monster horrifies Victor, even though Shelley’s point is that the real monster is ultimately Dr. Victor Frankenstein. The common view is that Victor is actually the real embodiment of monstrosity because he uses science to create life, overstepping the boundary between mortality and playing God. However, what does it mean if we can say that in one aspect, the creature is monstrous because he commits murder, yet in another sense Victor is the monster because he plays God? Can we not say that both Victor and the creature that he creates have the capacity for monstrosity? The ‘Sameness’ they both share is not only human attributes, but also the ability to dark places within themselves. Also, remember that in the novel, the creature himself realizes that he is different. And thus he feels oppressed, labeled and so on. In a strange way, the creature sees humanity as something other than himself (it is for this reason that the creature asks Victor to creates a partner for him, an ‘Eve’ to his ‘Adam’). So, even though Victor sees the creature as Other, the point is that the creature sees Victor as well. Both see the other as Other. So what does this sameness teach us in regards to the liberal politics of tolerance? Namely that we move from an emphasis on difference to an emphasis of the same and in doing so, see that the move of Othering is reciprocal. Or to put it another way, the act of Othering is universal. Nietzsche summed up their point nicely: “And when you look long enough into an abyss, the abyss also looks at you.” The point being, we may see the Other as Other, but if we look long enough, we realize that they also see us as Other. What we should do is stop stating at each other and acknowledge the fact that we are gawking at one another, that is, we should affirm the sameness in the situation and our commonalities. And who said Romantic literature is a thing of the past?
