“What Was I?”: The Monster as a Grotesque Secret in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein 侯淑惠 (政治大學英文系博士候選人) Abstract
In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818), the story begins with Victor Frankenstein’s ambition to access the secret of life. The creation of the Monster is thus the materialization of Frankenstein’s intention to explore the secret knowledge of life. The nameless Monster, as a being crossing the boundaries of species Frankenstein and his fellow men comprehend, turns out to be Frankenstein’s major secret in his life, which leads to his own and his creation’s torments and miseries. Concerning the outcome of Frankenstein’s secret experiment, critics have various responses. On the one hand, some critics like Joyce Carol Oates sympathize with Frankenstein, for they believe that Frankenstein’s motivation for creating the Monster are beneficial to all human beings and that his later sufferings caused by his creation should earn him more sympathy. On the other hand, some critics like Mary Poovey take sides with the Monster since it is Frankenstein’s selfish desire to play the role of God that results in his own and the Monster’s sufferings and torments. However, the relation between Frankenstein’s hiding the fact of his creation’s existence, the Monster’s physical deformity and sympathy has not received sufficient attention yet. The Monster’s grotesque physicality, which arouses horror and which is associated with evil, is the site of contestation between Frankenstein’s intention to hide the Monster’s existence and the Monster’s desire to reveal its own identity to the human community. In this paper, by adopting Noel Carroll’s theory pertaining to the grotesque, I will first analyze how Mary Shelley demonstrates the conflicts between Frankenstein and the Monster in terms of hiding/revealing its grotesque physicality, the contested site of the secret. And, I will then examine how Mary Shelley sees her Monster as a grotesque figure that deserves sympathy. Keywords: the secret of life, the grotesque, sympathy, Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818), the story begins with Victor
Frankenstein’s ambition to access the secret of life. The creation of the Monster is thus the materialization of Frankenstein’s intention to explore the secret knowledge of life. The nameless Monster, as a being crossing the boundaries of species Frankenstein and his fellow men comprehend, turns out to be Frankenstein’s major secret in his life, which leads to his own and his creation’s torments and miseries. Concerning the outcome of Frankenstein’s secret experiment, critics have various responses. On the one hand, some critics like Joyce Carol Oates sympathize with Frankenstein, for they believe that Frankenstein’s motivation for creating the Monster are beneficial to all human beings and that his later sufferings caused by his creation should earn him more sympathy. On the other hand, some critics like Mary Poovey take sides with the Monster since it is Frankenstein’s selfish desire to play the role of God that results in his own and the Monster’s sufferings and torments. However, the relation between Frankenstein’s hiding the fact of his creation’s existence, the Monster’s physical deformity and sympathy has not received sufficient attention yet. The Monster’s grotesque physicality, which arouses horror and which is associated with evil, is the site of contestation between Frankenstein’s intention to hide the Monster’s existence and the Monster’s desire to reveal its own identity to the human community. In this paper, by adopting Noel Carroll’s theory pertaining to the grotesque, I will first analyze how Mary Shelley demonstrates the conflicts between Frankenstein and the Monster in terms of hiding/revealing its grotesque physicality, the contested site of the secret. And, I will then examine how Mary Shelley sees her Monster as a grotesque figure that deserves sympathy. According to Noel Carroll, something can be called the grotesque only when “it is a being that violates our standing or common biological and ontological concepts and norms” (297). That is, the grotesque is something that is crossing the boundaries of biological and ontological categories we comprehend, something that is unnamable and nameless. The example Carroll provides is the “combinatory or fusion figure” (Carroll 296). The combinatory or fusion figure, with the traits of inbetweenness and “bothand,” falls into category confusion and physical
deformity. Physical deformity is associated with evil, according to Carroll: “the grotesque and the monstrous are natural vehicles for portraying evil because the anomalous typical, though, as we will see, not always, suggests a threat, and we tend to regard threats as evil” (Carroll 297). Carroll’s theory of the grotesque, in which physical deformity not only is associated with evil but also arouses horror, can assist us in understanding Mary Shelley’s view on the grotesque in the novel. Mary Shelley’s Monster’s grotesque physicality arouses horror when Victor Frankenstein, the Monster’s creator, witnesses its animation. Owing to the Monster’s grotesque figure, Frankenstein secretes the Monster’s existence. According to Carroll, one of the traits of the grotesque is horror (Carroll 299). In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the Monster’s physical appearance, especially its face, is indeed the site of horror. Frankenstein depicts that the materials employed to construct the Monster are from a dissecting room and a slaughter house. The location where the materials are collected indicates that the components of the Monster are body parts and animal flesh. The Monster is the mixed product of the natural and the unnatural. The origin of the construction of the Monster makes it a hybrid, the embodiment of inbetweenness, and the combination of life and death. Frankenstein makes a vivid report on the Monster’s physical deformity. The Monster’s mummylike “watery eyes,” “straight black lips” and transparent yellow skin have a sharp effect of horror, especially when comparing to its “lustrous black” hair and pearllike white teeth (Frankenstein 57). At the very moment of witnessing the animation of the Monster, Frankenstein does not obtain the moment of celebrating the accomplishment of his experiment, but is instead overwhelmed by the Monster’s grotesque physicality. As Thomas Vargish argues that “Dr. Frankenstein rejects [the Monster] on strictly aesthetic grounds” (329), the Monster’s grotesque physicality indeed fills Frankenstein with nothing but horror and disgust. The contrast between Frankenstein’s expectation for and the animation of the Monster’s physical appearance not only shows its creator’s disappointment, revulsion and disgust but also accumulates the degree of horror: “How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form? His limbs were in
proportion, and I have selected his features beautiful. Beautiful! – Great God!” (Frankenstein 57). Frankenstein’s exclamation of “Great God” shows his sheer desperation and disappointment. His paintaking efforts to create a beautiful, perfect creation now turn out to be fruitless. The outcome goes to the opposite extremity of Frankenstein’s anticipation, that is, his creation is not less than “the catastrophe” and “the wretch”. Thus, Frankenstein decides to bury this grotesque secret and pretend that the Monster never exists. The effects of Frankenstein’s concealment of the grotesque secret on his family members, friends and himself are detrimental and even fatal. To conceal the secret, Frankenstein suffers from a nervous breakdown and deteriorating health conditions. Frankenstein’s concealment of the secret also affects his family and friends vitally. Frankenstein hides the secret by escaping from it, shunning his responsibility on the Monster and disregarding the Monster’s request for love and sympathy. Frankenstein’s hiding the secret causes a series of casualties. Frankenstein keeps emphasizing the reason why he cannot reveal the secret, which consolidates his selfishness. When facing Justine Moritz’s (the maid of the Frankenstein family) being accused of having murdered William Frankenstein, Frankenstein’s youngest brother, Frankenstein does not choose to tell the truth, but he instead maintains that “My tale was not one to announce publicly; its astounding horror would be looked upon as madness by the vulgar” (Frankenstein 80). What Frankenstein cares about the most is his fame rather than Moritz’s life. We also can see his selfishness in his wife’s case. Frankenstein is the only one that knows the Monster’s existence. Since he is aware of the danger of the Monster, Frankenstein is able to do something beforehand to protect himself from that monstrous danger: “I took every precaution to defend my person, in case the fiend should openly attack me, I carried pistols and a dagger constantly about me and was ever on the watch to prevent artifice” (Frankenstein 192). By concealing the secret, Frankenstein makes his innocent and vulnerable family members and friends under the threat of the Monster.
Frankenstein’s decision to keep the Monster as a secret and forsake it also affects the Monster negatively. By depicting human beings’ reactions to its grotesqueness, Mary Shelley demonstrates how the Monster is maltreated and
rejected merely because of its grotesque physical appearance, which is related to evil. Andrew Bartlett argues that “except for his ugliness, [the Monster] might pass for human. He has the resentment, desire, guilt, linguistic capacity, esthetic taste, religious yearning, erotic appetite [….]” (3). The Monster’s physical deformity is an unmovable obstacle between human beings and itself. The Monster’s grotesque physicality fills Frankenstein with horror and disgust. The impression of abhorrence and filth emerged from the Monster’s grotesque physical appearance is so tremendous that Frankenstein flees his “newborn” creation: “I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room [….]” (Frankenstein 57). Frankenstein’s departure, which indicates the creator’s abandonment, is the first rejection the Monster experiences due to its physical grotesqueness. In order to survive, the Monster stumbles into one village where the villagers, when encountering it, are horrified by its grotesque presence even though their reactions towards the Monster vary: “[…] I had hardly placed my foot within the door, before the children shrieked, and one of the women fainted. The whole village was roused; some fled, some attacked me, until, grievously bruised by stones and many other kinds of missile weapons” (Frankenstein 106). The villagers’ brutality towards the Monster’s grotesque otherness is clearly demonstrated in this scene. Peter Heymans argues that “[the] reason why the Monster causes universal outrage is because it looks unlike anything else” (124). The villagers are unable to categorize the Monster, and thus see it as a strange existence, which does not belong to the category of human beings and thus does not belong to the human community. Since they relate its grotesque physicality to evil, the villagers have intended to kill this unwelcomed evil monster. The villagers’ violence to the Monster is a way to deny it. For the Monster, to reveal its identification is a way to display its refusal of being coerced to be a secret by Frankenstein and being unrecognized and maltreated by human beings. The Monster regards learning language as the first and crucial step to reveal its identity. Peter Brooks argues that “though excluded
[by humankind], [the Monster] is learning the means by which to be included” (105). Indeed, having encountered a series of rejection, the Monster realizes that it is its grotesque physical appearance that prevents it from the human community as well as sympathy. Such realization later urges the Monster more to learn language seriously, which the Monster regards as a bridge to the human community, and to cultivate itself by observing the De Lacey family so that it can be accepted by them owing to its ability to speak and its cultivation. The Monster thus comes up with a considerate plan. It chooses the blind old De Lacey to be the first human being from whom it tries to win kindness and sympathy, for the blind old man, it assumes, is the only one who may not judge it on the basis of its appearance. To win the blind old De Lacey’s trust is where the Monster’s hope for recognition and sympathy rests. By encouraging itself, the Monster shakes off its sentimental worry and is now confident that its capability of managing language and its sincerity will definitely persuade and move the blind old man. From the very start, things go well as the Monster wishes. The blind old De Lacey, after listening to the Monster’s articulation, shows his kindness and trust to the Monster: “I am old, and cannot judge of your countenance, but there is something in your words, which persuades me that you are sincere. I am poor, and an exile; but it will afford me true pleasure to be in any way serviceable to a human creature” (Frankenstein 134). The exchange between the Monster and the old De Lacey is fruitful (Paul Marchbanks 29). However, the Monster’s pleasure and satisfaction at the old man’s acceptance and permission to provide assistance do not last long. Unfortunately, the Monster’s plan fails. At the crucial moment, Felix, along with Safie and Agatha, enters the house and ends the interaction between the old man and the Monster with violence: “Felix darted forward, and with supernatural force tore me from his father, to whose knees I clung: in a transport of fury, he dashed me to the ground, and struck me violently with a stick” (Frankenstein 135). Felix’s violent reaction to the Monster, who is regarded as a grotesque outsider, indicates that the Monster does not belong to their community. Carroll argues that “[t]he grotesque and the monstrous are natural vehicles for portraying evil because the anomalous typically […] suggests a threat, and we tend to regard threats as evil”
(Carroll 297). Felix’s attack on the Monster demonstrates that he sees it as a threatening monster, who is seemingly attacking his father now, owing to its gigantic and distorted feature as well as its appearance of horror. All this indicates the fruitlessness of the Monster’s effort to reveal its identity. Felix’s fatal attack and their later swift departure confirm not only the Monster’s uncategorized identity but also the impossibility of retaining sympathy and kindness from the human society and of situating itself in the human community. The Monster’s encounter with Felix happens at the cottage, which is the representative of the sphere of human beings. Entering the house of the De Lacey family, the Monster is now trespassing the boundary; however, such transgression is forbidden. Felix’s violence to the Monster is punishment for its transgression. The departure of the De Lacey family from the cottage implies that for the Monster, to have sympathy is impossible and that they deny any forms of contact with the Monster. This scene gives the reader strong impression of absolute loneliness and incommensurability. Naomi Hetherington argues that “All [the Monster] has experienced from humanity is loathing and attempts to exterminate him” (11). Indeed, all the acts the De Lacey family as well as those, who have mistreated the Monster, have done are to force the Monster into the realm of invisibility. Such invisibility lies in the fact that human begins are not willing to see the Monster and thus try to escape from it or push it far away from the human society, since for human beings, the Monster’s grotesque presence, which is related to evil by humankind, is not only the source of horror but also that of a threat to their selfpreservation. The failure of the Monster’s plan accompanied by Felix’s violence and the departure of the De Lacey family kindles the Monster’s fire of revenge and thus asks its creator for a female companion. Frankenstein’s broken promise accumulates the Monster’s outrage and begins the vicious traces of revenge between Frankenstein and the Monster. The story ends with Frankenstein’s death and the Monster’s disappearing in the darkness. It is likely that Mary Shelley lets Frankenstein die for the sake of his transgression of playing the role of God and of his irresponsibility for his creation. As George Levine argues, “Victor’s worst sin is […] his refusal to take
responsibility for [his creation]” (4). By the same token, Theodore Ziolkowski argues that “the creature, while ugly, is by no means inherently evil, […] becomes evil only when the scientist refuses to assume responsibility for his creation” (5). The Monster’s fate is, to some extent, different from Frankenstein’s. Mary Shelley, who shows her sympathy for the Monster, does not kill her Monster at the end of the novel. By giving the Monster a voice to articulate by and for itself, Mary Shelley’s sympathy goes to the Monster. Shelley lets the Monster speak its own maltreatment, injustice and hurt feelings. Rather than merely as an object, the Monster as a speaking being accounts for its own stories, which win the reader’s sympathy, from its own points of view. The Monster describes its feelings and circumstances after its creator’s abandonment: “I was a poor, helpless, miserable wretch; I knew, and could distinguish nothing, but feeling pain invade me on all sides, I sat down and wept” (Frankenstein 103). This passage indicates the Monster’s hapless situation once it was created. Once it was animated just like a newborn, the Monster was left behind and deprived of any fundamental care, and its needs were totally ignored. Even though it had a mature body once it was created, the Monster’s brain was still like a blank paper and had no skills for survival yet. Its irresponsible creator’s departure is the first betrayal the Monster experiences. The Monster once tells Robert Walton its feeling of being an absolute grotesque figure, which indicates sheer loneliness and isolation: […] where were my friends and relations? No father had watched my infant days, no mother had blessed me with smiles and caresses; or if they had, all my past life was now a blot, a blind vacancy in which I distinguished nothing. From my earliest remembrance I had been as I then was in height and proportion. I had never yet seen a being resembling me, or who claimed any intercourse with me. What was I? The question again recurred, to be answered only with groans. (Frankenstein 121) This passage indicates the grotesque Monster’s emotional reflections on its loneliness, alienation and otherness resulting from its grotesqueness. Muriel
Spark argues that while Frankenstein stands for the emotions, the Monster stands for the intellect (20). The conclusion here needs more clarification. The Monster’s emotions of agony and anguish sting it when it is denied by the human community. On the one hand, the Monster compares itself to Adam. Like Adam, it was its creator’s first creation and was in the condition of innocence on the first day of its animation. Nonetheless, unlike Adam, the Monster has neither its creator’s protection nor any female companion. On the other hand, the Monster relates its situation of damnation to that of Satan. But, what makes the Monster remorseful is that even Satan the fallen angel has his own fellows (Frankenstein 129). With sympathy, the author just lets the Monster go, for whether the Monster will commit suicide still remains uncertain. Nonetheless, Mary Shelley’s sympathy for the Monster is not sweeping. At the very end of the novel, the conflict between Frankenstein insisting on concealing the secret and the Monster, who is not willing to be excluded, leads them to a situation in which both of them are losers. For Frankenstein, the most desirable is to conceal the grotesque secret, exterminate it and resume peace and tranquility. However, he fails, and his following revenge leads him to his own death. Concerning the Monster, to obtain love, kindness and sympathy from humankind is what it is eager for; however, the Monster is unable to change its status quo, which results in its resentment and revenge. The Monster’s revenge backfires with regret and banishment. In conclusion, Mary Shelley’s Monster’s grotesque physical appearance, which arouses horror and which is associated with evil, is the key element upon which Frankenstein’s decision dwells to regard it as a secret. Abandoned by its irresponsible creator, the innocent Monster, owing to its “inborn” deformed appearance, begins its journey filled with repeated rejection and injustice. In order to reveal its identity to and search for sympathy from human beings, the Monster learns language and cultivates itself so that it wishes that it could have a chance to be recognized and accepted by the human community. The Monster’s grotesqueness fails its wish, and the De Lacey family’s violence and departure makes the Monster turn to its creator and request him to create a female
companion for it. The novel ends with Frankenstein’s death and the Monster’s disappearing in the darkness. By making it articulate and leaving its fate uncertain, Mary Shelley shows her sympathy for her grotesque Monster.
Works Cited
Bartlett, Andrew. “Keeping the Monster at a Distance: Artificial Humanity and Victimary Otherness.” Anthropoetics 13.3 (2008): 130. Print.
Brooks, Peter. “Language, Nature, and Monstrosity.” Modern Critical View: Mary Shelley. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1985. 10114. Print.
Carroll, Noel. “The Grotesque Today.” Modern Art and the Grotesque. Ed. Frances S. Connelly. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. 291311. Print.
Hetherington, Naomi. “Creator and Created in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.”
KeatsShelley Review 11 (1997): 126. Print.
Heymans, Peter. “A Problem of Waste Management: Frankenstein and the Visual Order of Things.” Animality in British Romanticism: The Aesthetics of Species. London: Routledge, 2012. 11833. Print.
Levine, George. “The Ambiguous Heritage of Frankenstein.” The Endurance of “Frankenstein”: Essays on Mary Shelley’s Novel. Ed. George Levine and U. C. Knoepflmacher. Los Angeles: U of California Press, 1979. 116. Print.
Marchbanks, Paul. “A Space, a Place: Visions of a Disabled Community in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and The Last Man.” Demons of the Body and Mind: Essays on Disability in Gothic Literature. Ed. Ruth Bienstock Anolik. London: McFarland & Company. 2334. Print. Oates, Joyce Carol. “Frankenstein’s Fallen Angel.” Modern Critical Interpretations: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987. 6779. Print. Poovey, Mary. “My Hideous Progeny: The Lady and the Monster.” Modern Critical Interpretations: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987. 81106. Print.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1969. Print.
Spark, Muriel. “ Frakenstein.” Modern Critical Views: Mary Shelley . Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1985. 1130. Print.
War, Literature and the Arts: An International Journal of the Humanities 21.1 (2009): 32237. Print.
Ziolkowski, Theodore. “Science, Frankenstein, and Myth.” Sewanee Review 89.1 (1981): 110. Print.