Frankenstein The Modern Prometheus - Blog Posts

I decided to post my analyses and comments about Frankenstein in a side blog. I reposted what I put here there. @frankenstein-live-blogging

I read chapter 1 and 2 and have many thoughts about Victor's childhood and personality. Sorry for the long post.

First of all, he's first five years of life were privileged and self-centered. At the time he was a only child pampered be his rich parents, never knowing hardship. Through the chapters, he talks about how his parents were never strict, how they were nice, good people, etc.

This brings up, again, the facts that he never experienced real consequences for his actions, don't know how the real world works - believing that in the end everything always work out if you try hard enough - and see everything through the egocentric lens that he can never be wrong, everyone else just can't see his brilliance.

We can see this with his initial pursuit of knowledge about the Natural Sciences. He became interested in alchemy and don't believe his father about the lack veracity in this studies. He persists in this journey to the elixir of eternal life, seeking fame, but never stops to reflect what this discovery could mean to the world in its practical application.

He just stops when after receiving irrevocable proof that his scientific branch is wrong. This first disappointment's already too much to his ego, and instead of just correcting himself, he completely abandons the Natural Sciences as if it personally insulted him and his world view.

You can also see Victor's egocentrism from how, even though we learn he has a younger brother, he never tell us his brother's name and he never features in his stories of childhood. This brothers existence challenge his belief of being the center of his family, the center of his everything, so, therefore, is discarded.

We could talk, also, about how his relationship and thoughts about Elizabeth differ from his relationship and thoughts about his brother. He don't see Elizabeth as his own person, or even as family, not really. Ever since his mother presented her as "a gift" to him, that's how he views Elizabeth. She is but a extension of Victor, how he sees her is just a reflection of how he sees himself She's, like him, perfect in everyway and, as his present, every compliment she receives is a compliment to him, his "owner". Because that's what we do with objects that belong to us, if someone says: "I like your bracelet" the correct responde would be "thanks", because this person isn't really complimenting the bracelet, but its owner.

I'm stopping here, thanks for reading.

I just read the 4 letters in the beginning of the book and I've to say that I love Captain Walton, very cool, very passionate, very gay for "the stranger", who's obviously Victor, btw

I didn't mention before, but the book I brought have this QR codes in the pages that give me soundtracks while I read, very immersive

During the pandemic I lost my reading habit, I became depressed and lost the ability to focus in books.

After lots of therapy, this year I decided restart that habit. I already read 3 books about academic or philosophic discussions, so I decided that it's time to read some fiction now.

All this is to say that I'm reading Frankenstein by Mary Shelley for the first time and will be live blogging about it.

i think i agree with some of what you're saying here, particularly the justine-trial thing and also victor's lack of foresight (ironic, then, that prometheus was the god of foresight), but i'll challenge you in regard to the "victor makes every wrong decision possible" bit: what was the RIGHT decision? realistically, given his knowledge of the situation (people tend to forget this is a story being told in retrospect and act like victor should have been omniscient...) and the hand that he was dealt, what could victor have possibly done that could have actually altered his outcome? personally i tend to veer towards the belief that after the animation of the creature, he could have done, well, Nothing, or at least very little (i'll elaborate on why i think so if you'd like, do let me know!)—narratively, victor's greatest, irreversible sin is the creation of the creature itself, and this is why frankenstein functions as a tragedy.

in regard to the creature though i'd have to disagree. the creature loves and appreciates humanity, he doesn't resent it! that's why he wants to be a part of it so badly, and keeps trying over and over despite the violence he's faced with! that's why he feels the sting of rejection so badly and reacts the way he does! and even after he becomes embittered after the delaceys, his request of victor to make him a mate is an inherently human one, meant to emulate the people and families and relationships that he's read about and observed!

not only that, he explicitly finds it UNnatural to commit acts of violence. when he hears of such acts while listening to felix teach safie, this is outlined clearly:

Was man, indeed, at once so powerful, so virtuous, and magnificent, yet so vicious and base? He appeared at one time a mere scion of the evil principle, and at another, as all that can be conceived of noble and godlike. To be a great and virtuous man appeared the highest honour that can befall a sensitive being; to be base and vicious, as many on record have been, appeared the lowest degradation, a condition more abject than that of the blind mole or harmless worm. For a long time I could not conceive how one man could go forth to murder his fellow, or even why there were laws and governments; but when I heard details of vice and bloodshed, my wonder ceased, and I turned away with disgust and loathing.

and later, this is his reaction to reading plutarch's lives:

I read of men concerned in public affairs, governing or massacring their species. I felt the greatest ardour for virtue rise within me, and abhorrence for vice... I was of course led to admire peaceable lawgivers, Numa, Solon, and Lycurgus, in preference to Romulus and Theseus.

that is, he naturally appreciates virtue and looks towards pacifists as role models. and in general, i think it's wrong to say the creature's only been taught hatred and violence. even if he never experienced directly it himself, he understood and experienced, through lessons with safie and through his own readings, virtue, compassion, etc. from the outside. (arguably, his relationship with the delaceys was parasocial enough that at the very least he believed, and at one point, felt, that he had taken part in this sharing of virtue and compassion as well—he did not feel completely separated from it).

even after being stoned by the village people, being met with fear, rejection, violence, etc. the creature thinks this:

As yet I looked upon crime as a distant evil; benevolence and generosity were ever present before me, inciting within me a desire to become an actor in the busy scene where so many admirable qualities were called forth and displayed.

crime is still a "distant evil"; triumphed by the "benevolence and generosity" ever before him. there's no resentment of the world, no desire to reproduce the violence he's faced, not until his confrontation with the delaceys. it is this rejection, not victor's rejection, that is the creature's undoing. this is when he burns down their house, chooses to take revenge on victor, murders william, etc.

even then, his natural distaste for violence and appreciation for virtue is so strong, to the extent that he abhors himself for committing these same acts (go look at his interaction with walton at the end). and ultimately THAT is why i find the creature unforgivable, because it's shown time and time again violence is not this sort of knee-jerk reaction to him, and when he chooses to do the things he does, it's with a cultivated knowledge of right versus wrong, and not only that, a cultivated FEELING of right versus wrong. he actively goes against his own morals, detesting himself but refusing to stop all the while, for the sake of revenge. but i'll hop off my soap box...

a take on Frankenstein for some reason

There's far more nuance to both Victor and the creature than anyone tends to give either character credit for. The creature isn't evil but also not misunderstood, he's a hyper-intelligent child forced to find his own way in a world that time and time again violently rejects him. The fist time he visits a town they stone him on sight. Of course he resents humanity, and Victor's rejection of him is a final straw. He comes to his own naïve conclusions, and having been shown violence time and time again, finds it natural when something detestable comes before him. So when he finds a child baring his neglectful fathers name, the rage he feels compels him to murder.

That is objectively wrong yes, but you cannot expect anything less from the child who has only been taught hatred and violence.

The creature is like a dog that has been taught to bite without warning because it's never had any other choice. That makes it understandable, tragic but not entirely justified.

equally Victor isn't evil either, people get on his back for not speaking up during Justine's trail (tbf what was he supposed to say? "my big magic monster is the true culprit, no I have no proof of that or even that he exists, just trust me bro") (we even see how poorly that goes when he tells the Sherriff later on in the book), but I attribute that to the fact that Victor was an extremely haunted and prideful person who believed it was up to him to solve his mess (it kinda is but not he way he tries to) because "surely nobody else could!" He's also fairly stupid. Scientifically he's a genius, obviously. But he also makes almost every wrong decision possible and rarely considers the consequences of his actions (He also believes the creature is planning to kill him when it's so unbelievably obvious that he intends to kill Elizabeth). He decides to try and deal with the problem he's caused on his own, but fails so many times that he eventually dies and the creature solves the issue of his existence himself. Victor was more of a deadbeat, a narcissist and a moron than a villain.

Because Frankenstein is not a story with true villains, just bad people

there are many interpretations on just what the “nervous fever, which confined me for several months” that victor experienced was, but i don’t think anyone has yet put forward the idea that it was based on hypochondriasis. (in general i will refer to this source, a practical treatise of hypochondriasis written by john hill in 1766, in regard to just what hypochondriasis is–it’s a very interesting read and i would recommend it!)

hypochondriasis (which now carries a different meaning–i am not referring to hypochondria i.e. abnormal anxiety/fear about one’s health) was a non-specific condition that encompassed many varieties of the “nervous illnesses” of the 18th century. the concept was derived from theories of bodily humors and was once considered a special form of melancholy resulting from an excess of black bile, or alternatively that it was an obstruction in the body caused by high emotion, among many other explanations–but in hypochondriasis, and in the 17-18th century in general, the idea that the health of the mind and the body were inherently linked was HUGE. while it’s not readily definable it was generally seen as the masculine equivalent to hysteria in females, which is thematically important in ways i’ll get into later.

in short, hypochondriasis: 

is caused by grief and/or “fatigue of the mind” i.e. intense, prolonged study or focus on one thing, particularly night studies

those who are educated, studious, isolated, sedate and inactive (not among nature), are more susceptible

typically begins and reoccurs in autumn months

results in self-isolation, depression, a “disrelish of amusements,” wild thoughts or overthinking on one subject, and a sense of oppression in the body

physically, it causes low appetite, heart palpitations, dizziness, confusion, night sweats, emaciation, convulsions, etc

fits of high emotion, excessive exercise, and shock can cause relapses, even months or years after the first event

is said to be cured by mild medicine, but no chemistry; but above all, it is cured by the study of nature, and hypochondriac people should get frequent air and exercise

the parallels to victor are rather blatant. the study of natural philosophy becomes victor’s “sole occupation,” and he describes being “animated by an almost supernatural enthusiasm.” in the treatise, those subject to the disease are said to be those who have “greatly exerted [the mind’s] powers” and have ”determined resolution…intent upon their object [of attention]”. It’s also noted that “whatever tends to the ennobling of the soul has equal share in bringing on this weakness of the body.” 

it is this focus on creating new life, and later, this self-isolation, that results in his “cheek becom[ing] pale with study,” and his “person had become emaciated with confinement” and he “seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit.” it is to the extent that his eyes become “insensible to the charms of nature” and he neglects correspondence with his friends and family. he becomes “oppressed by a slow fever…and nervous to a most painful degree” and, like those with hypochondriasis, believes that “exercise and amusement would then drive away incipient disease.”

it’s also notable that the height of victor’s illness–directly after the creature’s creation–occurs, like in hypochondriasis, in autumn. during it, he describes many of the physical symptoms attributed to hypochondriasis: weakness, heart palpitations, dizziness, wild thoughts and paranoia, convulsions, etc. it’s only after henry’s care that he is able to recover, and in particular, after viewing a scene of nature:

I remember the first time I became capable of observing outward objects with any kind of pleasure, I perceived that the fallen leaves had disappeared, and that the young buds were shooting forth from the trees that shaded my window. It was a divine spring; and the season contributed greatly to my convalescence. I felt also sentiments of joy and affection revive in my bosom; my gloom disappeared, and in a short time I became as cheerful as before I was attacked by the fatal passion.

throughout the novel, these symptoms will reoccur (relapse) in times of high emotion, shock and stress–justine’s trial, the confrontation at the alps, during the creation of the female creature, etc. overall he meets the marks of hypochondriasis nearly down to a T.

and, returning to the idea that hypochondriasis is essentially the male equivalent of hysteria, which was only attributed to females at the time, this is relevant because frankenstein is a female narrative synthesized through a male narrator. by extension victor also meets many of the marks of hysteria. in general, the creature’s creation feminizes victor: victor remarks that he becomes “as timid as a love-sick girl” during his illness and describes his fever as “painfully nervous” and alternating between “tremor” and “passionate ardour.” during and after the creation process, victor exhibits what was then perceived as “feminine” emotional freedom–anxiety, weakness, self-doubt, fear, etcetera. considering this in-context that 1) victor’s labors allude to mary shelley’s own traumatic experiences with childbirth 2) this was written in a turning point in history where high-class men who had "nervous" senses/feelings were beginning to be seen as effete instead of stylish (they used to be thought fashionable because they were more in-touch with their senses than the lower classes or something to that effect), this all seems very intentional.

now, what do i think victor actually had (since humorism has, obviously, since been disproved)? a 2-for-1 psychotic disorder + whatever concoction of germs he acquired from sticking his hands in corpses for weeks on end combo. but that’s for another day!

victor's belief that he's responsible for the deaths of his family (by extension of creating the creature) was borne out of excessive guilt, i might go as far as to say bordering on delusions of persecution. id argue walton was more directly responsible for deaths than victor ever was (several members of his crew died on his ship as a result of his inexperience and persistence), but first and foremost the creature was responsible, not victor, and to suggest otherwise i think is blatantly ignoring the creature's autonomy. he had a cultivated understanding of morality and the world's evils and chose, while knowing and feeling that it was a moral wrong, to murder. i think, eventually, it is this willingness to deliberately go against his own morals to commit evil acts that victor considers monstrous, not just the creature's monstrous appearance in of itself, which is one of the defining factors of his choice not to create the female creature.

if anything, id argue this passage is actually proof of victor acknowledging his "failure as a parent" or rather his duty as a parent, its just not done so directly. this is a story being told in retrospect, and that fact colors victor's narration because he already knows the events that are being described. in this sense, the quote seems more of an acknowledgement of this than anything else, particularly with the language of "creature" and "being to which they had given life" used to describe a child, which, like youre saying, are both blatant parallels to how victor describes the creature. if you look at this and then consider it within the context of victor and creature's confrontation on the alps, where victor does actually explicitly admit to his duties as a creator, i think it changes things:

For the first time, also, I felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness. These motives urged me to comply with his demand.

and then, later:

I was moved [...] I felt that there was some justice in his argument. His tale, and the feelings he now expressed, proved him to be a creature of fine sensations; and did I not as his maker, owe him all the portion of happiness that it was in my power to bestow?

in both quotes victor mentions he feels he owes the creature happiness, i.e. the same "train of enjoyment" he experienced in his own childhood, and it is the feelings the creature expressed (stemming from his mistreatment by victor, but also more importantly by society as a whole; i think people tend to overinflate the importance of the creature's "abandonment" by victor in the grand scheme of things) that push victor to this idea. that is, victor pretty directly admits to the effect of his absence on creature.

Victor Frankenstein admits multiple times that him creating the creature led to multiple deaths so he’s responsible in that sense but he assumes it’s because he created a monster but in my opinion, he knows him failing as a parent/abandoning the creature is why it turned out the way that it did, he just won’t admit it, and this passage from chapter one is my prime evidence.

I was their plaything and their idol, and something better—their child, the innocent and helpless creature bestowed on them by Heaven, whom to bring up to good, and whose future lot it was in their hands to direct to happiness or misery, according as they fulfilled their duties towards me. With this deep consciousness of what they owed towards the being to which they had given life, added to the active spirit of tenderness that animated both, it may be imagined that while during every hour of my infant life I received a lesson of patience, of charity, and of self-control, I was so guided by a silken cord that all seemed but one train of enjoyment to me.

(for the ask game from a few days ago) could you do Victor for 2, 12, 15 and 24

2. Favorite canon thing about this character?

i had to sit and think because this one was so hard to narrow down. on a surface level i find all sorts of things about him endearing from his mannerisms to his speech patterns, but i think the thing that got me hooked on victor as a character was how emotionally demonstrative he is, particularly for a male protagonist. this also extends generally to his love for nature, for his friends, and his siblings (disregarding the incestuous implications of his relationship with elizabeth...)

i think this was only intensified for me when i started delving into frankenstein academic essays and analysis and then, by extension, the frankenstein fandom, and found that en masse it was people criticizing victor for just what interested me to him in the first place: being emotional, and therefore somehow melodramatic, overreacting, self-centered, egotistical, etc. it was this kind of climate of victor-hate that pushed me to make a tumblr account in the first place. someone had to be the sole victor defender in this barren wasteland

12. What's a headcanon you have for this character?

this is silly and probably not the serious answer you were looking for but like 2 years ago a dear friend of mine and i were joking about how you could catch victor frankenstein in a mouse trap and ever since then his assigned fursona in my head has been a mouse:

15. What's your favorite ship for this character?

by far its waltonstein (robert x victor). im aware clervalstein is vastly more popular, and while im charmed by it in-canon i dont find most depictions of it to my taste. i don't see their relationship as wholly reciprocated–one-sided on walton's end–which is part of the reason why i like their dynamic so much: its established that walton romanticizes the unobtainable, chases the unknown, and that's why he hangs all his hopes on things he cannot feasibly reach. first becoming a famous poet and going down with the greats, then sailing to find the northern passage despite being an inexperienced captain, all the while hoping for this impossibly idealistic image of a companion who would be perfectly tailored to his interests and manners, and then, against all reason, he finds this in victor, wherein victor becomes an extension of this habit, who is dying and too hung up in the past and on martyring himself, because everyone who has grown close to him has been hurt for it, so he cannot love again, or at least in the way walton wants. yet victor still has a reciprocated interest and finds a friend in him, even shares the same sentiment of the importance of friendship, but like he says no man can "be to him as clerval was." its very much wrong place/time but the right person.

ive said this before but i think, too, that if victor had recovered and lived than walton may fall a little less in love with victor. their relationship was founded on their dynamic of sick/caretaker, and beyond that, victor would have already exhausted his story, so there's no air of mystery around him anymore–nothing for walton to glorify or romanticize. ultimately i think even if they had the best of intentions and loved each other, they could not have a healthy or fully mutual relationship, and part of the appeal to me is this tragedy!

24. What other character from another fandom of yours that reminds you of them?

im drawing a bit of a blank on this one because no other character encompasses just what victor Is to me, but theres a whole host of victor-esque characters i could name because he is the literal foundation for the mad scientist archetype. if i was pressed i think id say geoffrey tempest from sorrows of satan by marie corelli (beyond his blatant misogny), and i remember some parts of emil sinclairs early narration in demian by herman hesse reminded me of victor. lucifer/satan from paradise lost also, particuarly the bit where he says he cannot enjoy the beauty of earth for the suffering of his fall, but that almost feels like a cop-out answer.

lastly–and this one is completely unfounded–itd have to be double dee from EEnE.

peak sibling behavior

for my 100th post (!) i thought i would, at long last, make a catch-all analysis on victor and elizabeth’s relationship, their marriage, and why specifically it was incestuous. throughout i may mention my interpretations of caroline’s past and her pseudo-incestuous relationship with alphonse, which you can read here. it’s not necessary to understand this post, but you’ll miss some of the nuance of the relationships between the frankensteins without it

in the 1818 version of the novel, elizabeth is the paternal first cousin of victor. she is, like caroline, similarly upper-class but falls into misfortune when her mother dies and she is left under the care of her father. these parallels become important later. after elizabeth’s mother dies, her father writes to alphonse “….requesting [Alphonse] to take charge of the infant Elizabeth” and that it was his wish “…that [Alphonse] should consider her as [his] own daughter, and educate her thus” (1818). that is, it was explicitly intended for elizabeth to be reared as a daughter to the frankensteins (and thus victor’s sister). 

in the 1831 edition, caroline specifically has an interest in elizabeth because she sees herself and her own situation in her, a background that mirrors her own. i’ll directly quote a post of mine instead of reiterating the same point. essentially: from the beginning caroline deliberately sets up parallels between herself and elizabeth. she wants a daughter, and adopts elizabeth specifically because elizabeth reminds her of herself, but grander: like she was, elizabeth is also a beggar and an orphan and homeless, but her story is more tragic, she is more beautiful, her debt to her caretakers more extreme, and her romantic relationship will go on to be more explicitly incestuous. through elizabeth and victor, caroline will perpetuate her own abuse. the difference is, unlike her own, this is a situation caroline can control.

from the beginning, at six years old, victor and elizabeth are raised with the expectation that they are going to be wed when they are older. as an adult, elizabeth reflects “that our union had been the favourite plan of [their] parents ever since our infancy” and that “we were told this when young, and taught to look forward to it as an event that would certainly take place” (1831). this is because of caroline’s “desire to bind as closely as possible the ties of domestic love” (1818), and so she is raised as victor’s “more than sister” (1831). they are encouraged to play at the role of mother and father/husband and wife together via raising and educating their younger siblings, particularly ernest. ernest is described as being victor’s “principal pupil” and, during his illness in infancy, elizabeth and victor were “his constant nurses” despite caroline, alphonse and maids/servants/caretakers being available

simultaneously, caroline grooms elizabeth into being a mini-me, calling her her “favorite” and encouraging her to embody the same values as her. caroline does all she can to have elizabeth be what is, essentially, a second version of her, while all the while dictating a marriage to her son

this becomes even more significant, when, on her deathbed, caroline reinforces her wish for victor and elizabeth to marry: “My children... my firmest hopes of future happiness were placed on the prospect of your union. This expectation will now be the consolation of your father. Elizabeth, my love you must supply my place” (1831). by attempting to replace herself with elizabeth via telling her to “supply her place” (of mother/wife) to the rest of the family, caroline is not only dictating a marriage between brother and sister but now mother and son, as elizabeth shifts from a sister-figure to victor into a maternal substitute, and simultaneously is his bride-to-be. as a result the roles of mother, sister and wife become conflated in victor’s mind—to some degree, there is no one without the other.

there’s deeper things at play here too, namely that it creates victor’s later emotional obligation in honoring his mother’s dying wish to go through with the marriage (furthered because it is the “consolation” of his father… alphonse also says something to this effect after victor gets out of prison), but i have enough to say on how victor is relied on as a pillar of emotional support by all of his family that it warrants its own post

this subconscious shift between the role of sister figure to mother figure is further emphasized when, during his dream at ingolstadt after the creation of the creature, elizabeth morphs into caroline in victors arms: “I slept, indeed, but I was disturbed by the wildest dreams. I thought I saw Elizabeth…Delighted and surprised, I embraced her; but as I imprinted the first kiss on her lips, they became livid with the hue of death; her features appeared to change, and I thought that I held the corpse of my dead mother in my arms” (1831). that is, she literally changes from sister into mother. this is also the only kiss in the entire book, and the only instance victor and elizabeth display any affection for each other that is explicitly non-platonic (and elizabeth’s affections towards victor generally feel more motherly then amorous, particularly in contrast to the romance of felix and safie), and during it, she turns into victor’s mother and decays in his arms.

but why make the creature in the first place? well, as the common misconception goes, it wasn’t about reanimation (which was only mentioned once in a throwaway line) it was about creating new life. what victor wound up doing what was not reversing death, but what was, essentially, an alternate method of childbirth. this is a significant detail when considered in the context of victor and elizabeth’s relationship: victor’s goal was to create life, and he, at great lengths, intentionally circumvented women (elizabeth) in this process. why? so that he could dodge an act of incest—marrying elizabeth and providing the frankenstein heirs and carrying on the family legacy, which is what his family expected him to do.

there’s evidence to suggest elizabeth views victor as a brother. elizabeth indirectly acknowledges this relationship during justine’s trial, when she stands up for her defense: "I am," said she, "the cousin of the unhappy child who was murdered, or rather his sister, for I was educated by, and have lived with his parents ever since and even long before, his birth…” (1831). here, elizabeth calls herself the cousin of william (which is notably what she refers to victor as, both when they are literally cousins and when they have no blood relation—either way, a familial term) and then corrects herself, that she is actually william’s sister. her reasoning for this? she was raised and educated by the frankensteins alongside him ever since she was young. if you follow this logic, by extension she also considers herself ernest’s—and more relevantly—victor’s sister.

there is an egregious amount of subtext that suggests victor also views elizabeth as a sibling as well. before victor leaves for his vacation with henry, alphonse tells him that he has “always looked forward to [victor’s] marriage with [his] cousin as the tie of our domestic comfort” because they were “attached to each other from earliest infancy” and “entirely suited to one another in dispositions and tastes.” however, he acknowledges that because of this, victor may, perhaps, “regard [elizabeth] as his sister, without any wish that she might become your wife. Nay, you may have met with another whom you may love; and, considering yourself bound in honour to your cousin, this struggle may occasion the poignant misery which you appear to feel” to which victor replies: “My dear father, re-assure yourself. I love my cousin tenderly and sincerely. I never saw any woman who excited, as Elizabeth does, my warmest admiration and affection. My future hopes and prospects are entirely bound up in the expectation of our union” (1831). that is, he answers, no, he has not met any other woman he would rather marry, yet skirts around the former half of alphonse’s question and doesn’t acknowledge whether or not he views her as a sister or not.

this occurs again after victor is released from prison in ireland when, elizabeth, in a letter, does eventually ask him if he wants to back down from the marriage (this same letter features elizabeth literally hitting the nail on the head when asking if victor was going through with the marriage because he felt honor-bound to their parents). however, she poses this by asking: “But as brother and sister often entertain a lively affection towards each other, without desiring a more intimate union, may not such also be our case?...Do you not love another?” to which victor honestly answers no, he has not met any other woman. however, it’s not addressed whether he’s in love with elizabeth herself, nor does he address whether or not their affection towards each other is akin to that of siblings–again he entirely ignores it.

when victor and alphonse return to geneva after his release from prison, alphonse proposes victor’s immediate marriage to elizabeth, to which victor remains silent. alphonse then confronts victor once more: “Have you, then, some other attachment?” victor responds: “None on earth. I love Elizabeth, and look forward to our union with delight. Let the day therefore be fixed; and on it I will consecrate myself, in life or death, to the happiness of my cousin" (1831). yet the “hopes and prospects” that victor saw bound in their marriage earlier was, in fact, his own death–which was “no evil to [him]...and I therefore, with a contented and even cheerful countenance, agreed with my father, that if my cousin would consent, the ceremony should take place in ten days, and thus put, as I imagined, the seal to my fate” (1831). victor sees going through with a marriage to elizabeth as suicide, and embraces this.

they are both mutually hesitant and describe feelings of dread and melancholy on their wedding day itself. at the very least this indicates a lack of romantic interest in each other. after the ceremony, when they row out on the boat together, victor has a thought that is perhaps the most blatant example of his romantic disinterest in elizabeth: “Then gazing on the beloved face of Elizabeth, on her graceful form and languid eyes, instead of feeling the exultation of a—lover—a husband—a sudden gush of tears blinded my sight, & as I turned away to hide the involuntary emotion fast drops fell in the wave below. Reason again awoke, and shaking off all unmanly—or more properly all natural thoughts of mischance, I smiled” (Frankenstein 1823). victor also makes it clear to the narrator (walton) that they did not consummate their marriage before elizabeth’s death, which suggests there was hesitance or disgust around the concept. 

this is a neat little aside and more circumstantial evidence then anything else, but it is pretty well known that mary shelley's works tend to be somewhat autobiographical, and that her characters are influenced by people in her own life. this is most obvious in the last man, but its also present to a lesser extent in frankenstein, wherein victor's character is inspired by (among others) percy shelley. percy wrote under the pseudonym victor, which is believed to be where victor's name may have come from—and elizabeth was the name of percy shelley's sister.

for some reason people seem to think that mary somehow stumbled into writing a commentary on marriage/incest accidentally, and that the themes of frankenstein are all about her trauma due to her experiences as a victim of the patriarchy, as a woman and a mother surrounded by men - as if she wasnt the child of radical liberals who publicly renounced marriage, as if she herself as well as percy shelley had similar politics on marriage, as if she would not go on to write a novel where the central theme is explicitly that of father/daughter incest years later…

the most obvious and frequent critique of victor i see is of his attempt to create life - the creature - without female presence. it’s taught in schools, wrote about by academics, talked about in fandom spaces - mary shelley was a feminist who wrote about feminism by making victor a misogynist. he’s misogynistic because he invented a method of procreation without involving women purely out of male entitlement and masculine arrogance and superiority, and shelley demonstrates the consequences of subverting women in the creation process/and by extension the patriarchy because this method fails terribly - his son in a monster, and victor is punished for his arrogance via the murder of his entire family; thus there is no place for procreation without the presence of women, right?

while this interpretation – though far from my favorite – is not without merit, i see it thrown around as The interpretation, which i feel does a great disservice to the other themes surrounding victor, the creature, the relationship between mother and child, parenthood, marriage, etc.

this argument also, ironically, tends to undermine the agency and power of frankenstein’s female characters, because it often relies on interpreting them as being solely passive, demure archetypes to establish their distinction from the 3 male narrators, who in contrast are performing violent and/or reprehensible actions while all the woman stay home (i.e., shelley paradoxically critiques the patriarchy by making all her female characters the reductive stereotypes that were enforced during her time period, so the flaws of our male narrators arise due to this social inequality).

in doing so it completely strips elizabeth (and caroline and justine to a lesser extent) of the power of the actions that she DID take — standing up in front of a corrupt court, speaking against the injustice of the system and attempting to fight against its verdict, lamenting the state of female social status that prevented her from visiting victor at ingolstadt, subverting traditional gender roles by offering victor an out to their arranged marriage as opposed to the other way around, taking part in determining ernest’s career and education in direct opposition to alphonse, etc. it also comes off as a very “i could fix him,” vibe, that is, it suggests if women were given equal social standing to men then elizabeth would have been able to rein victor in so to speak and prevent the events of the book from happening. which is a demeaning expectation/obligation in of itself and only reinforces the reductive passive, motherly archetypes that these same people are speaking against

it is also not very well supported: most of the argument rests on ignoring female character’s actual characterization and focusing one specific quote, often taken out of context (“a new species would bless me as its creator and source…no father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as i should deserve theirs”) which “proves” victor’s sense of male superiority, and on victors treatment/perception of elizabeth, primarily from a line of thinking he had at five years old, where he objectified her by thinking of her (or rather — being told so by caroline) as a gift to him. again, the morality of victor’s character is being determined by thoughts he had at five years old.

obviously this is not at all to say i think their relationship was a healthy one - i dont think victor and elizabeth’s marriage was ever intended to be perceived as good, but more importantly, writing their relationship this way was a deliberate critique of marriage culture.

i’ve seen the “monsters aren’t born they’re created” line of reasoning applied quite a few times in defense of the creature, wherein creature was inherently good-hearted but turned into a monster via victor’s “abandonment” and his subsequent abusive treatment by other humans, but this logic is so scarcely applied to victor. victor, to me, is often sympathetic for the same reasons as the creature, it’s just those reasons are not as blatantly obvious and require reading in-between the lines of victor’s narration a bit more. most “victor was evil and bad” or even some “victor was unsympathetic” arguments tend to fall through when you flip the same premise onto victor: if monsters are created, than who created victor frankenstein?

ok but walton if you look at the letters in the beginning, while i wouldnt go so far as to say he's a neglected child (we dont get nearly enough insight into his background to make those kind of assumptions) his parents were definitely, at the very least, not very present in walton's life or influential to him growing up. from my memory his mother is literally never mentioned, and the sole mentions of his father are fleeting. simply: 1) he didnt support waltons childhood dreams and interests in sailing and expeditions/discovery 2) he died, leaving walton an orphan to be raised by his older sister margaret 3) his fathers literal dying wish was for walton to never be a mariner. so while i am in no way suggesting his childhood was near as bad as the creature's, or even victor's, i think its incorrect to suggest that walton was completely blind and ignorant to neglect and parental conflict

"victor's creature would kinda be justified in not feeling bad" but he DID feel bad and therein, to me, is where his fault lies. i feel as if the creature would have felt no empathy, no care at all for victor or those lives he was taking, then i would actually blame him for his actions less -- because what creature did was murder innocent people, and destroy victors life, all while understanding and FEELING that it was bad. he did it anyways, while actively going against his own morality

creature "doesnt really like humans and kills them" is incorrect, his reason for killing them was NEVER because he didnt like them, its because he chose to murder for revenge while simultaneously wishing he could be part of the humanity he was destroying, which is why he was so distraught and upset when he was ostracized and met with their fear and hatred every time. because he LIKED THEM, he in his sort of parasocial way LOVED them and wanted to be loved and accepted by them

and walton sees this! which is what his whole speech and their interaction at the end is about! he sees the creatures humanity, he knows creatures life stories and feels for his misfortunes and is moved by his words and expressions of sadness, and even sympathizes with him in a way literally no one else in the book does, yet he also recognizes that creature actively chose to turn away from his innate humanity and goodness and consciously choose violence and revenge instead, while knowing and feeling what he was doing was wrong, and That is why walton condemns creature

"do you think he had enough for a conscience for morality when he was neglected by his own fucking creator???" this line is just funny to me. Because thats. Thats the point of the whole book. That he had a conscience for morality despite his horrific situation

im not going to get into the whole victor-abandoned-creature and the bride-situation because ive talked about it a Lot in the past and this post is already too long. sorry for dumping this all on you months after you made this post its all for the sake of literary analysis and walton is my babygirl i had to jump to his defense 🙏 🙏

walton = big dumb stupid head

it is so weird to me that despite hearing the same tale from victor that we have, when walton hears of victor's creature wailing over victor's death he's basically like:

"erm actually maybe if you listened to your concisnece nothing would have happened l + ratio + bozo!!"

like c'monnNn walton,, do you think he had enough for a conscience for morality when he was neglected by his own fucking creator??? and even then tbh victor's creature would kinda be justified in not feeling bad since again victor ran immediately and has been very against giving his creation a second chance, permanently at least with his bride and all.

and its like gee maybe the guy who lived on his own forever and who humans treated HORRIBLY doesn't really like humans and kills them? :0 woaaa walton crazy shit right there. Idk i just-like i like victor and all but c'mon man you don't neglect ur kid but if u do don't be surprised at the consequences and walton, walton just shut the fuck up

all victor hateposts boil down to are "i hate victor because [he displays XYZ mental/physical illness symptom]" or "i hate victor because [he does things or reacts in a certain way because of reasons outside of his control due to his illness]"

victor and elizabeth were not the first grooming case nor the first pseudo-incest relationship in frankenstein: that would be alphonse and caroline.

alphonse was a friend of caroline’s father, beaufort. this is how they met, and so there was a significant difference in their ages. after beaufort dies, alphonse and caroline marry. take a look at how beaufort’s passing is described:

Her father grew worse; her time was more entirely occupied in attending him; her means of subsistence decreased; and in the tenth month her father died in her arms, leaving her an orphan and a beggar. This last blow overcame her; and she knelt by Beaufort’s coffin, weeping bitterly, when my father entered the chamber. He came like a protecting spirit to the poor girl, who committed herself to his care, and after the interment of his friend he conducted her to Geneva, and placed her under the protection of a relation. Two years after this event Caroline became his wife.

while "orphan" does not strictly mean the person is a minor, orphan still is most commonly used to describe a minor whose parents are both dead. if we interpret orphan in that sense, then caroline would have been a child when alphonse first took her in. the fact that he waits two years after this event to marry her also hints towards this, almost as if he was waiting for her to become legal and the age of consent. this is further supported by the diminutive language of “poor girl” used to describe her, who is in juxtaposition to the paternal “protecting spirit” of alphonse whom she commits herself into the care of.

even if caroline was not a minor, there was a large enough gap in their ages - and the fact that alphonse “saved” caroline from poverty, creating an economical reliance on him - that there was an unhealthy power balance in their relationship. because of this dynamic, it really does read like grooming: alphonse houses caroline till she is (supposedly) old enough to marry, and by that time she would have been pushed into consenting to the marriage because she relied on him for money and housing, and could have some sort of emotional obligation to him as well for supporting her in a time of need and grief, and he is a significant link to her deceased father. this difference in their ages is highlighted again when victor notes that alphonse was in the decline of his life by the time he and caroline were having children together, and by the time victor is 19 alphonse is old enough that he is physically incapable of traveling to ingolstadt.

in this way their relationship is pseudo-incestous, because alphonse (her father’s age) swoops in to support caroline (a child) after her father dies. this makes himself the father figure replacement, and caroline his daughter. once she is of age she transitions from the role of daughter to wife, and during her marriage caroline will go on to repeat this cycle of abuse, and recreate this same dynamic - except this time, it is in a situation that she can control: through victor and elizabeth.

from the beginning caroline deliberately sets up parallels between herself and elizabeth. she wants a daughter, and adopts elizabeth specifically because elizabeth reminds her of herself, but grander: like she was, elizabeth is also a beggar and an orphan and homeless, but her story is more tragic, she is more beautiful, her debt to her caretakers more extreme, and her romantic relationship will go on to be more explicitly incestous. caroline calls elizabeth her favorite and grooms her into becoming a second version of herself, so that she can recreate the traumatic event of her marriage with her two children.

so, as caroline dictates the marriage between victor and elizabeth, victor becomes to elizabeth what alphonse was to caroline: a man, who is also a familial figure, that she must marry in order to have a stable social and economic life. the frankensteins have provided elizabeth with everything she has, and the threat is there that they can also take it away if she does not comply (through marrying victor), which is the same kind of looming, unspoken threat that hung over caroline and alphonse’s marriage.

AITA for not telling my fiancé I know he’s queer? 

I 20s (F) have a 20s (M) fiancé, V, and he’s been talking about this terrible secret he cannot tell me and he keeps almost starting to come out and then backing out. The issue is V and I were raised together by his parents, and my surrogate 40s (M) father and (now deceased) surrogate mother arranged for our marriage back when we were both children. They thought it was the best for us and at the time we were too young to realize the implications and had no reason to reject to the match. When we were teenagers our mother was on her deathbed and she told us again that she wished for us to marry, and of course we both agreed. However, V is also best friends with a 20s (M) guy called H, and they were nearly inseparable as boys and teens. They also went to university together and shared an apartment but V had to come home due to family reasons. Lately he’s been going out all day and coming home at night hours later. He insists that he’s fine and that we all leave him alone and not worry for him, but I think he and H have been sneaking around. He even delayed our wedding day by arranging a trip to go to England alone with H. It’s exhausting for all of us and I think I should just tell V I know and support him and that we can call off the marriage, but I’m not sure that’s the best course of action? I’m completely fine with not marrying him - he always felt more like a brother to me anyway - but I worry it might come off wrong. The worst part is he’s really beating himself up about it. He’s so guilty it’s beginning to take a toll on his health. I don’t care if he has a boyfriend I just want him to be happy.

EDIT: nvm he built an 8ft creature in his dorm

if victor is the creature's literal father, then by extension the female creature would have been the creature's literal sister. by choosing to break his promise and destroy the bride, victor is breaking the cycle of abuse by refusing to comply to the demand that he dictate a marriage between siblings, like his mother did to him and elizabeth.

”finally got my degree so now i can say im smarter/better than college dropout victor frankenstein” no you arent. victor went from being the equivalent of an aspiring astronaut studying astronomy to having the 1790s version of two PHDs in chemistry and biology and was well on his way to a third in oriental languages when he HAD to stop - literally because his brother was murdered. all during a time period where going to university was widely considered optional and/or extracurricular!

anyway like. walton in the beginning says he dislikes the typical masculine crassness and brutality associated with sailors, because he was raised under the "feminine fosterage" of margaret, and then goes on for pages about how he wants a "friend whose eyes reply to his" or whatever, and that he found something close to this in his lieutenant specifically because his lieutenant has traditionally feminine virtues (dont remember exactly but it was gentleness, kind-heartedness, etc) and then this friend that hes been waiting for all along turns out to be victor. all this to say victor and walton are t4t

this is what waltonstein is to me

robert walton laid down in his bed and wrote every letter gushing about victor to margaret in this pose

been sitting on this for awhile because its a bit controversial, but its one of the main reasons i was pushed into the frankenstein fandom space so i figured it was high time to talk about it

ive noticed that theres this general opinion, both among scholars and present in more fandom-y spaces, that victor is somehow effeminate for what are ultimately symptoms of disability (fainting spells, being bedridden, hysteria, etc) as if being physically or mentally ill is something that is inherently feminine. i have read articles published by academics that victor’s sickness is proof of his “femininity,” which is why he wants to take on the traditional part of a woman, that is, childbirth (via creature)

even in general, and not on an academic level, it emerges in jokes or memes all over the place — people poking at victor for being weak, or sick, or a gay little UWU bean sub, because aw hes fainting all the time XD and he’s sooo dramatic! as if these things were somehow both his choice, and somehow innately feminine

so, not only is there this weird link people are attempting to draw between disability and femininity, but also queerness (particularly, ive noticed, being a “bottom” or “sub” — but thats a whole separate can of worms) and femininity. as if being either of these things is inherently girly or cutesy and thus worthy of being made fun of

there comes a point (particularly when these interpretations leak into broader understandings of something via pop culture), where, for lack of a better word, it comes off as fetishizing or romanticizing queerness and/or queer relationships

and while this may seem relatively harmless on the surface and comes off as just thoughtless jokes made in bad taste, it IS serious. not just within the context of frankenstein, but the general premise of the severity that even subconscious reinforcement of detrimental and stereotypical ideas should be treated with. its a slippery slope from jokes to notions that affect you and how you see the world

this is obviously part of a broader problem with the way disability, gender, identity and etc is thought about and taught, which results in people harboring all sorts of these types of underlying prejudices. its just that victor happens to be a particularly good example, wherein he is a feminized man that is ascribed as “weak,” and the attribute “weak” is ascribed to someone who has been historically analyzed as both disabled and queer. this has been reinforced for decades, and i feel like this treatment of his character in this way is so blatantly obvious and runs rampant while it goes nearly entirely unchecked — and also in the case of frankenstein discourse, its often a quadruple whammy (ableism, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia)

and the worst part is that it is so often completely unintentional, and the bulk of this sort of content are well-meaning jokes. i genuinely don’t think people do this in bad faith or out of malice, but spreading these concepts even in formats that appear to be harmless (jokes, memes) just contribute to and continue to spread these ideas and stereotypes. its frustrating because its hard to point out and bring attention to without coming off as nitpicky or overly sensitive because this sort of thing is just so SUBTLE, and these beliefs are so gradually learned and then reinforced on a subconscious level

i could go on but for risk of sounding redundant ill digress, however to be clear this is not me saying you cant view victor as transfem, or disabled, or queer (i do!), or to view him as feminine, or etc, but that you should look at the reasons for WHY you think so, and how you or others treat the subject when talking about it.

[DNI if: approx. 8 foot tall, yellow skin, shriveled complexion, straight black lips, flowing hair, teeth of a pearly whiteness, watery eyes] [TW: mentioned graverobbing, unethical science, parental abandonment, child death, murder]

she franken on my stein till i beautiful! great god! his yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.

dont know if i’ve said this all here yet but i see very often people pointing out victor’s supposedly idealistic childhood in comparison to the creature’s early suffering, and it always comes off as some sort of “gotcha!” moment when i think really there’s room there to be looking at the WHY that is. why, despite supposedly having this ideal childhood, with good, caring parental figures in his life, he fails to give this same upbringing to his own child? the issue is that of those who bring this up, their perspective tends to be already inherently limited: that is, victor is a bad parent simply because he is a privileged asshole. by beginning his narrative by describing his family and childhood as perfect and ideal, victor sets an expectation for parents that is obviously impossible, yet people continue to hold him accountable to it.

and, really, what childhood is really as perfectly happy as victor’s description? his almost-desperate insistence that his childhood WAS perfectly happy is just that — desperate — and it makes it suspicious. this insistence suggests the opposite, and i believe this assertion is taken at face-value far too often; particularly when his childhood, even in-text, was objectively imperfect and troubled, and victor himself directly addresses in his narration to walton that his past recollections of his family and early childhood are idealized, even going so far as to describe them as "religious" and "sacred" in feeling: i think [among other things] that this suggests, like many victims of childhood trauma and abuse, now that there is physical distance between the memories as well as time having passed since then, he has sentimentalized this era of his life

if you step back take a moment and look at the maternal figures in his life as well (caroline, elizabeth, and to a lesser extent justine) an obvious pattern emerges - each one of them was orphaned, and then “saved” by becoming a member of the frankenstein family, where they are afforded an environment where they are able to become these motherly, nurturing caretakers. this pattern is broken with victor: when he is orphaned, instead of joining the family, he EXITS it — that is, he is sent off to ingolstadt, and completely stripped of this support system, leading to his “failure” as a mother.

in a similar vein, the same people who harp on and on about how victor is negligent and an unaccountable father fail to hold the creature accountable for his actions as well, and somehow the fault for the entire plot of the book (that is, the murders of the frankensteins and co) rests solely on victors shoulders.

actually one of the things that continues to gut me the most about frankenstein is victor constantly asserting that he isnt crazy, that he is not a madman - he literally disrupts the flow of the narrative to do so, in his desperate attempts to be heard - and then he continues to recount a tale where he is constantly plagued by doubt and shame and guilt to the extent that does not tell anyone for fear of not being believed, or being thought of differently. and then these fears are only confirmed and re-affirmed when he attempts to reach out to anyone, and they do exactly that: during his feverish rambles henry believes it was due to his illness, he is imprisoned on the coast of ireland and kept there when his tale sounds like a confession, he is told by his father not to speak of it any longer, when he reaches out for help after elizabeth’s death the magistrate dismisses him. only one person ever sits down and suspends their disbelief and listens to him. robert walton, through the power of gay love—

*pats victor like you would the roof of a car* cultural osmosis really did a number on you didnt it

yeah

in all of the frankenstein analysis ive read here, be it you interpret the creature as ugly or only uncanny valley or just a baby with scary eyes, ive not once seen someone mention this line, just after the creature’s awakening:

like?? this should be pivotal, shouldn’t it? that victor acknowledged that the creature was ugly before he brought him to life?

tfw u rly want this dying guy you found whimpering on a floe of ice but one can ever be to him as clerval was, because even when the affections are not strongly moved by any superior excellence, the companions of our childhood always possess a certain power over our minds which hardly any later friend can obtain (rolling eyes emoji)