Hello, Internet.

So, in the recent weeks my class has been reading Mary Shelley’s famous novel Frankenstein. We’ve compared the novel to some horror movies – namely Halloween and Get Out – but this week we finally watched the movie itself. We also watched a movie about the director, James Whale, and now we’re facing a question: who is the real monster?

This is a much discussed question when it comes to Frankenstein. Of course, we literally refer to the creature as “Frankenstein’s monster” (when people aren’t mistakenly referring to him as “Frankenstein”), and he has become an iconic monstrous figure much like a vampire or a zombie. I can clearly recall having nightmares about Frankenstein’s monster as a kid – I hadn’t seen the movie at the time, but the image of the creature is one that has permeated our cultural conception of what monsters look like, and via osmosis it became a symbol of my understanding of evil.

However, the original story of Frankenstein is not so clear cut.

So, I had some peripheral knowledge of Frankenstein as a kid. At one point, maybe around the age of eleven or twelve, I even tried to read the book, although I didn’t make it past the end of the first chapter. Eventually, a few years ago, my dad and I watched Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein in anticipation of Halloween.

I can’t exactly say I was blown away; the movies are from 1931 and 1935, respectively, so the acting, writing, and effects leave something to be desired. However, it’s always cool to see something so iconic, and I enjoyed watching the movies (probably more than I enjoyed the Kenneth Branagh version, which was more accurate to the book, but lesser-known and still nothing amazing just as a film). While the films didn’t differ significantly from the generally accepted idea that Frankenstein’s monster is, in fact, the monster, he did read as more sympathetic than I had excepted.

In particular, the film version of the creature essentially reads as a tortured animal; from almost the moment he is brought to life, he is mistreated and abused, and has little to no understanding of the human world. He can’t speak, he is given no affection or really almost any positive human interaction, and he is literally kept in the dark for the first few days of his life. Nobody even bothers to give him a name, and he is referred to largely as “it”. Fritz, Frankenstein’s assistant, waves a torch at the creature, hurting him if he gets too close to the only other living beings he knows. When the creature, unaware of his own strength, or any concept of life and death, lashes out and ends up hurting people, he is immediately vilified and sentenced to death. There is no attempt to give him a human life, a fair trial, or to communicate with him at all; he is treated as dispensable and purely evil. By this reading, the end of the first movie is very bleak, as the true monster – Frankenstein (the scientist) and by extension the townspeople – comes away the victor.

In Gods and Monsters, the movie  about James Whale that we watched, comparisons are drawn between Whale and the creature. Whale, who was gay and forced to retire because of it, may have related to the idea of being mistreated for being different, while actually having done nothing wrong. However, towards the end of the film, Whale sexually assaults another character (an act far more reprehensible than anything the creature does in the film), so it’s difficult to feel any actual sympathy for him.

The actual text tells a different story. Frankenstein’s creature, while still abused, isolated, and treated as inhuman, is shown studying humans and gaining a sense of empathy and an understanding of the human world. His actions from this point on are a choice, slaughtering people he knows to be innocent in order to torture Frankenstein.  Frankenstein himself greatly regrets what he’s done, and despite having been at fault for creating and then neglecting the creature, he is justified in trying to stop a creature that is intentionally killing everyone he loves. Both sides are much more humanized and sympathetic. However, both sides also do a lot of wrong, and nobody walks away a winner.

In the novel, the creature is given a voice. He speaks about his motivations, his growing frustration with the way he is treated by humanity, and his resentment towards his creator. He describes himself as “solitary and abhorred”, and after several encounters in which he attempts to peacefully interact with a human and is driven away, he declares “everlasting war” on humanity, and on Frankenstein in particular. However, he attempts to come to an agreement with Frankenstein, vowing to leave if he is granted a companion, a deal which Frankenstein initially agrees to but doesn’t end up complying with. Towards the end of the novel, the creature says that he will “ascend [his] funeral pile triumphantly” – a concept echoed in the film Bride of Frankenstein when the creature ever so eloquently states, “I love dead. Hate living”. The creature is a complex character; he becomes a monster, certainly, but only as a result of everyone around him being monstrous first.

Frankenstein sets up the plot of the book when he becomes determined to create life. He isolates himself to work on his experiment, becoming hubristic and reckless, daydreaming about how his creations (the plan at the time is to create many creatures) will be filled with gratitude that he brought them into the world.

Perhaps he should have read a parenting book or two before he got so ahead of himself.

It’s known in modern psychology that getting love and affection, and being able to bond with their parents or guardians, in the first few years of life can have drastic effects on a child’s brain development, particularly in regards to empathy (source). Now, the creature isn’t exactly a typical case – he already has an adult brain – but being abandoned by his ostensible primary caregiver, and then never being shown any sort of affection, is still going to significantly impact his psyche.

After essentially abandoning his child, Frankenstein becomes ill, partially from not taking care of himself while he was so wrapped up in his project, and partly due to the stress and fear of what he has done. Similar things happen several times throughout the book; after Frankenstein returns to his home in Geneva, while he is imprisoned under suspicion of murder, and at the end/beginning of the book when he reaches the arctic and is discovered by explorer Walton. Every time he becomes ill, someone nurses him back to health: Clerval; Frankenstein’s father; at one point an actual nurse; and finally Walton. Frankenstein is surrounded by love and support, and still cannot come up with an ounce of empathy for the creature he created.

In a sense, both Frankenstein and the creature are monsters in the novel. In fact, even many of the more minor characters are far from morally pure. Walton is selfish and values fame and recognition over all else; the people the creature interacts with throw rocks at him, chase him away, and at one point actually shoot him; the people Frankenstein meets after Clerval’s death wrongfully imprison him with no evidence that he has actually committed a crime; Justine’s mother hates and mistreats her own child. The only truly good characters (Elizabeth, William, Clerval, Frankenstein’s parents, Justine’s father, and Justine herself) all die, most as a direct result of Frankenstein and the creature’s actions.

So, to recap: Book creature, monster. Book Frankenstein, monster. Book Frankenstein’s family and friends, not monsters. Movie creature, not a monster. Movie Frankenstein, monster. Movie Frankenstein’s family and friends, somewhere in the middle. James Whale (as he’s portrayed in Gods and Monsters), monster. As far as I can find, Whale didn’t actually assault anyone in real life (although a radio presenter of the same name did), so real director James Whale, not a monster. In both the book and the movie, it’s lack of empathy and fear or mistreatment of those who are not like us that are the driving forces behind most of the monstrosities, which is very true to life.

While I think your view of who the monster is can differ based on perspective, I believe there is a case to be made for either or both of the major characters to be the monster, as they both become increasingly morally grey throughout the story. Either way, I would recommend both the book and the movie (as long as you’re not looking for anything fast paced).

Toodles.