Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

.✳️ Mary Shelley Frankenstein book vs Novel.

Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's "Frankenstein; Or, the Modern Prometheus" is one of the most famous stories in the Western literary canon. It has been adapted into multiple films and stageplays, as well as used as inspiration for many other stories. While it contains Gothic and Romantic literary elements, it's noted to be the first science-fiction novel and massively responsible for the creation of the horror genre. Shelley was influenced to write the novel during the summer of 1816 when she was 18 years old. She was visiting Lord Byron with her partner, Percy Shelley, in Switzerland during a time known as the ''Year Without a Summer'' because of the unusually cold and damp temperatures.

That summer, Shelley, Lord Byron, and Percy spent much time indoors reading each other ghost stories due to the miserable weather. Byron suggested to the group that each of them write and share their own ghost story. One night, Shelley listened to Byron and Percy discuss Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin. Erasmus was a physician known for being one of the founders of The Age of Enlightenment, a period in the 17th and 18th centuries where knowledge, reason, and philosophy began replacing religious ideals. In discussing Darwin's work, Byron and Percy thought about the possibility of reanimating dead bodies. That evening, Shelley has recounted having a nightmare on which her ghost story, Frankenstein, is based.

cartoon image of the monster from frankenstein

Shelley worked on her novel into the new year and finished it in May of 1817. The first edition of the text was heavily influenced by Shelley's now-husband, Percy, and it was published anonymously with Percy acting as its agent. Frankenstein received incredible success when it was published in 1818. Readers engaged with its scientific theme of reanimating a corpse while loving the writing's Gothic motif and unsettling descriptions. The novel was reviewed favorably by some of the most popular journalists and novelists in Europe at the time.

The text was first adapted for the stage in 1823, which Shelley was amused by; however, the stage adaptation deprived the monster of his voice while engaging him through exaggerated gestures. This interpretation of the monster may be the beginning stage for why audiences into the 21st century believe that the name Frankenstein references the monster instead of the doctor who created him. Shelley substantially revised the novel for the edition that was published in 1831; after this edition, she did no further work on the text.

Because Shelley’s version of Frankenstein is such an intense novel it would be hard to fit all components in an hour and eleven minutes of screen time. Writers of the film also cut out certain small characters of the book. More importantly though the film limited the representation of the relationship between Victor Frankenstein and his fiance Elizabeth. In the novel she was quite important and represented important aspects of innocence. Also showing their relationship helped show the pain Victor felt when Elizabeth died. 

Both the book and movie contain elements of the classic horror genre, but choose to portray them differently in order to appeal to their targeted audiences. All adaptations of Frankenstein have brought appeal for a variety of people, allowing everyone to enjoy. No matter who you are or what type of movie or literature you prefer, there’s a version of Frankenstein out there for you. 

✳️Who do you think is a real Monster.

Like that, Chicano Frankenstein was born. In the tradition of novelists, playwrights, filmmakers, animators, and graphic artists before me, I wanted to use Frankenstein to explore how, under the right circumstances, anyone can become a destructive force in society. And that sometimes it can be difficult to know who the monster really is.

My first exposure to Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus came from the 1931 classic Universal Pictures film adaptation. That celluloid creature imprinted itself on my 5-year-old psyche like no other horror movie of my 1960s childhood.

What was it about the monster—gamely played by Boris Karloff—that captured my imagination from the start? Was it the drooping eyes added by makeup artist Jack Pierce at Karloff’s suggestion that made the creature look half-dead? Or perhaps it was the flat skull shaped in such a way to ease the implantation of a cadaver’s brain? Or maybe the monster’s grunts and growls? I wonder if even back then, lurking in my young mind, there was some connection to, and sympathy for, this monster, who didn’t really mean to hurt anyone, right?

When I read Shelley’s novel for the first time in high school, I was surprised, like so many, to discover that the monster remains nameless throughout the book (the name Frankenstein belonged to his obsessed creator, a doctor who dared play God). But the real shock came when I realized that in the book, the monster learns to read and eventually speak rather eloquently. While the creature of the movie evokes fear and sympathy with his grunting monosyllabism, the monster of Shelley’s novel explains in perfect English what drove him to murder: “I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind?”

What It Means to Be American

Hawai’i in the Public Square

How Should Societies Remember Their Sins?

Who Is the Real Monster in Frankenstein?

Mary Shelley’s Novel and Its Many Adaptations Challenge Us to Explore Bias and Belonging  

Author Daniel A. Olivas writes about Chicano Frankenstein, his modern retelling of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and the story’s timeless themes. A still from the 1931 film Frankenstein. Public domain.

By Daniel A. Olivas | June 13, 2024

In 2022, I found myself reaching back to my childhood’s favorite monster for literary inspiration.

That year’s midterm elections had brought with them another round of angry MAGA candidates promoting the Trumpian lie of a stolen 2020 election. Part and parcel of their rhetoric was—yet again—an attack on immigrants and anyone who just didn’t fit in with their image of “real” Americans.

Trump’s wrathful rallying conjured images of the torch-bearing mobs of black-and-white horror films. I thought about Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s 1818 tale—and the inherently political implications of being a “monster” in a society that created you on the one hand and is repulsed by you on the other.

Like that, Chicano Frankenstein was born. In the tradition of novelists, playwrights, filmmakers, animators, and graphic artists before me, I wanted to use Frankenstein to explore how, under the right circumstances, anyone can become a destructive force in society. And that sometimes it can be difficult to know who the monster really is.

My first exposure to Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus came from the 1931 classic Universal Pictures film adaptation. That celluloid creature imprinted itself on my 5-year-old psyche like no other horror movie of my 1960s childhood.

What was it about the monster—gamely played by Boris Karloff—that captured my imagination from the start? Was it the drooping eyes added by makeup artist Jack Pierce at Karloff’s suggestion that made the creature look half-dead? Or perhaps it was the flat skull shaped in such a way to ease the implantation of a cadaver’s brain? Or maybe the monster’s grunts and growls? I wonder if even back then, lurking in my young mind, there was some connection to, and sympathy for, this monster, who didn’t really mean to hurt anyone, right?

When I read Shelley’s novel for the first time in high school, I was surprised, like so many, to discover that the monster remains nameless throughout the book (the name Frankenstein belonged to his obsessed creator, a doctor who dared play God). But the real shock came when I realized that in the book, the monster learns to read and eventually speak rather eloquently. While the creature of the movie evokes fear and sympathy with his grunting monosyllabism, the monster of Shelley’s novel explains in perfect English what drove him to murder: “I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind?”

In the tradition of novelists, playwrights, filmmakers, animators, and graphic artists before me, I wanted to explore how, under the right circumstances, anyone can become a destructive force in society.

In both the original Shelley novel and all the adaptations that followed, it’s telling that one plot point has remained more or less the same: Dr. Frankenstein’s creation is eventually shunned by both his creator and society, and it is this rejection that turns the creature into a monster.

I wanted to reflect on that theme in my modern retelling. As I planned my novel, I envisioned the creature not as a singular entity but as a class of people—reanimated corpses who’ve been brought back from the dead to replenish an aging workforce. After a decade’s worth of reanimation, 12 million of these cruelly mocked “stitchers” now walk among us in the United States—including the hero of Chicano Frankenstein. Other than having been brought back to life after a horrific car accident, our hero is just like any other person holding down a job: He earns a paycheck, attends work-related events, rents an apartment, and runs each evening. But having also lost his left arm and leg in the car accident, the man—described as brown-skinned—has had a replacement arm and leg, both of which are white, “stitched” onto his body. The mismatched limbs flag him as a reanimated subject, marking him for jeers from people who disdain the reanimated population as monsters created by science, who threaten to replace “real” Americans. The story follows his journey, as he attempts to maneuver a world that both needs and resents him.

In my worldbuilding, I determined that the reanimation process should wipe the subjects’ first lives while saving their education and skills. By setting that rule, I could mirror the immigrant’s journey of leaving behind home, family, and friends to become a stranger in a strange land. The “stitcher” epithet also let me explore how those who resent immigrants often rely on dehumanizing language (such as “illegals”) to strip people of their individuality. The irony, of course, is that our country needs immigrants at all levels of employment to replenish our aging population.

✳️Victor Frankenstein's Monster--The Victim.

intensely desires to be a part of society and if the only way he can participate in society is to indulge in evil, then he will. Thus, the being truly becomes the monster that society had feared from the start.

    The danger of a self-fulfilling prophecy is that people become that which they originally were not. As a result, they are unable to live with the person that they have become. The being was not a monster on the inside initially. As the monster says, "I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend" (Shelley 90). Society created his misery by rejecting him. Thus, Victor created the being, but society created the monster. None of these tragic murders would have occurred had someone, anyone, accepted him. The being even says, "If any being felt emotions of benevolence towards me, I should return them an hundred and an hundred fold; for that one creature's sake, I would make peace with the whole kind!"(Shelley 125). His repeated rejections and his intense loneliness lead him to commit acts which he never thought himself capable of committing. Society's expectations are fulfilled, but at the expense of the creature's soul. The monster confesses to Walton, "My heart was fashioned to be susceptible of love and sympathy; and, when wrenched by misery to vice and hatred, it did not endure the violence of the change, without torture such as you cannot imagine" (Shelley 182). The monster has fulfilled the prophecy, but he cannot live with what he has become. Thus, the being ultimately takes his own life.

✳️Should there be limits on scientific exploration? If so, what should those limits be?

All scientific studies have limitations, and no study is perfect. Researchers should not run from this reality, but engage it directly. It is better to directly address the specific limitations of the work in question, and doing so is actually a way to demonstrate an author’s proficiency and aptitude.