sylvia pimentalFrankenstein
December 28th 2006 23:58
In his monster, Frankenstein creates his ideal male lover which society must make him destroy.
Frankenstein’s monster is certainly a rather perverse ideal lover. Composed of stitched together pieces of dead bodies. Too ugly to be alluring, even Frankenstein himself recoils with horror at the sight of his creation.
While it is true that the text of Frankenstein is open to a wide range of interpretation and there are many ideas embedded within the text ie. male control of procreation, the end of mortality, man as God, the monster as Frankenstein’s double etc. The interpretation of the monster as an ideal lover does seem rather implausible.
Frankenstein begins his experiments with the stated aim of creating a new species beyond mortality and by creating life to usurp the role of God, and in effect hold the ultimate power - to bestow life. ‘A new species would bless me as its creator and source…’ (Shelley 1993: 35)
While Frankenstein’s process of creation is characterised by a feverish blindness there seems to be little in the way of evidence to support his obsession being of sexual nature. Rather ‘…he seeks to give artificial life to a new species he believes will be of excellent nature, because it is beyond mortality.’ (Bronfen 1998: 42)
The monster is in many ways Frankenstein’s double, intended as being everything that Frankenstein is only better. This creation of a second self is in many ways an act of self-love, a process of self-deification. But the double far from fulfilling any of its projected idealities is a monstrosity.‘…confronted by his own faults in this other shape prevented from blaming anyone but himself for the disastrous consequences of his actions, Frankenstein’s horror manifests the shame and unbearable responsibility that leave him no option but the destruction of what amounts to his double.’ (Botting 1998: 128)
The destruction of Frankenstein’s monster is not something that society must compel him to do. It is rather something which Frankenstein must voluntarily do. By destroying the monster, his double, he destroys himself. But more than this Frankenstein’s destruction of the monster is a redemptive action for Frankenstein not only does he save his fellow man from the threat posed by his creation, he in effect he saves himself and restores the natural order that his ‘unnatural’ and monstrous creation had disrupted. But despite Frankenstein’s need to destroy his monster he fails in his quest and is himself destroyed. His monster it is implied will destroy itself.
Frankenstein’s monster may be the embodiment of his idealised ‘other’ self, but which emerges as his dark double, a mirror onto which his own faults and hidden ‘evil’ is projected, and this seems a more rational explanation than the monster functioning as his idealised lover. The destruction of Frankenstein’s monster is not a task forced upon Frankenstein by a narrow and unforgiving society rather it is a necessary reinstatement of natural order.
Bibliography:
Botting, F. in Mulvey-Roberts, M. (ed) (1998) The Handbook To Gothic Literature Macmillan Press Ltd
Bronfen, E. in Mulvey-Roberts, M. (ed) (1998) The Handbook To Gothic Literature Macmillan Press Ltd
Shelley, M. (1993) Frankenstein Wordsworth Editions Ltd: Hertfordshire
Frankenstein’s monster is certainly a rather perverse ideal lover. Composed of stitched together pieces of dead bodies. Too ugly to be alluring, even Frankenstein himself recoils with horror at the sight of his creation.
While it is true that the text of Frankenstein is open to a wide range of interpretation and there are many ideas embedded within the text ie. male control of procreation, the end of mortality, man as God, the monster as Frankenstein’s double etc. The interpretation of the monster as an ideal lover does seem rather implausible.
While Frankenstein’s process of creation is characterised by a feverish blindness there seems to be little in the way of evidence to support his obsession being of sexual nature. Rather ‘…he seeks to give artificial life to a new species he believes will be of excellent nature, because it is beyond mortality.’ (Bronfen 1998: 42)
The monster is in many ways Frankenstein’s double, intended as being everything that Frankenstein is only better. This creation of a second self is in many ways an act of self-love, a process of self-deification. But the double far from fulfilling any of its projected idealities is a monstrosity.‘…confronted by his own faults in this other shape prevented from blaming anyone but himself for the disastrous consequences of his actions, Frankenstein’s horror manifests the shame and unbearable responsibility that leave him no option but the destruction of what amounts to his double.’ (Botting 1998: 128)
Frankenstein’s monster may be the embodiment of his idealised ‘other’ self, but which emerges as his dark double, a mirror onto which his own faults and hidden ‘evil’ is projected, and this seems a more rational explanation than the monster functioning as his idealised lover. The destruction of Frankenstein’s monster is not a task forced upon Frankenstein by a narrow and unforgiving society rather it is a necessary reinstatement of natural order.
Bibliography:
Botting, F. in Mulvey-Roberts, M. (ed) (1998) The Handbook To Gothic Literature Macmillan Press Ltd
Bronfen, E. in Mulvey-Roberts, M. (ed) (1998) The Handbook To Gothic Literature Macmillan Press Ltd
Shelley, M. (1993) Frankenstein Wordsworth Editions Ltd: Hertfordshire
| 110 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
