The Desubstantiation of Tragedy for the Justification of Loss: Mary Shelleys Frankenstein and the Zombie Franchise (original) (raw)
Related papers
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus (1818) is an amalgam of contradictory discourses. As the first science fiction novel, it shocked the contemporaries with its secular paradigm. Yet, both Shelley’s and Frankenstein’s creations are steeped in Gothic horror and supernatural romanticism. Although the dramatic imagery of dreams and isolated glaciers suggest fantasy and mystery, Frankenstein’s science is uncannily methodical – so methodical, in fact, that he refuses to reveal any details of his process, lest someone might repeat it. This denial of explanation has launched a frantic search for explanation through popular cultural adaptations. The still-cumulating popular cultural sediments have provided ever-new perspectives to reanimation, which has, however, obscured and destabilized the meanings of the tale even further. Moral panics, visual monstrosities and pulp horror tropes have trampled over Frankenstein’s intentions, fears and methods in popular imagination, turning a tale of education and betterment into a superstitious warning against scientific advancement. In my presentation, I demonstrate that these mismatched tendencies of explanation and mystification are also evident in comics and graphic narratives that recycle the myth, including Frankenstein’s Womb (2009) by Warren Ellis and Marek Oleksicki, and The Heart of the Beast (1998) by Dean Motter, Sean Phillips and Judith Dupré.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus-conceived by the author in Geneva in June 1816 in a literary contest also involving P.B. Shelley, Lord Byron and John Polidori, and published in 1818 ̶ was celebrated in 2018 by many conferences and seminars as an incomparable work of gothic, dystopian, feminist and science-fiction imagination. My paper, moving from an overview of the critical reception of the novel, aims to contribute to these celebrations by paying particular attention to Mary Shelley's reconceptualization of the body, with regard to its meaning in the societal structure of the time and, more generally, in power relationships.
The purpose of this research project is to prove that Mary Shelley’s progeny, the son of Victor Frankenstein, is an example of an identity that is within all of us. Also, it is argued here that the given examples of identity within the novel lend themselves to the ethical notion of authenticity. The overarching themes of Mary Shelley’s work are found within a movement from innocence to deprecation. The movement of these themes happens through the phenomenon of experience. During the first half of the novel, during the creature’s early life, an example of innocence is given; the latter example, a life of denunciation and scorn, is given through the second half of the novel, when the creature turns resolutely towards hatred and is transformed into the commonly known identity of the monster. The title of creature or monster is debatable, but here it is believed to be inaccurate to title Shelley’s progeny entirely as a monster, for he is not inherently evil. This thesis is built upon the premise that Shelley’s progeny goes under an intentional transformation from being a creature to a monster. This transformation is Shelley’s intention for two reasons; it represents man’s inherent fear of the unknown – e. g., the novel’s society and its fear of her the progeny. The intention also shows the inevitable behavioral, psychological, and emotional effects of rejection and scorn – also seen in her progeny. Despite the transformation, it is wrong to conceptualize her progeny as purely a monster. The title of monster is merely a perception given to the creature by the society within the novel. The identity of an evil monster is forced upon him. He carries no notion of original sin. The creature is inherently benevolent and seeks for the good in his life. It is because of his presumption in there being a good nature found within others that he is forced to commit evil acts. This concept of presumption is the author’s intention as well. With this intention, Shelley aims to critique and expose an inherent malady – a common vice of hasty judgments. It is through her progeny’s act of presumption that he takes on the title of monster. This is due to the fact that his search for the good in others is predicated on an impossibility of him being socially accepted by others. The condition of his acceptance from others is never met. Thus, his search for the good in others is in vain. All he finds is the evil, the scorn, and rejection which lead him to commit the evil acts. Mary Shelley uses the plight of her progeny as an analogy which speaks for the wretched in all of us. She intentionally targets the disdain and abhorrence of what is considered socially ostracized. She dredges up an unwanted desire to abandon all faith in humanity and – just as the monster – vow to keep no terms with our enemies. Therefore, these titles of creature and monster are pre-determined parts of a larger process of change within the identity of Shelley’s progeny, which develop both intrinsically from the progeny himself and extrinsically from the society surrounding him. As for this hideous progeny being an ubiquitous example of identity, there exists between him and his reader a shared aspect of life: the constant existential struggle to obtain, if not for only an instance, a substantially authentic identity. Shelley’s novel and this thesis does not exclude those who claim not to seek the virtue of authenticity. They will equally find themselves in the novel. This is the beauty of her novel. Mary Shelley gives us a plethora of modes and functions of the human being. There is the vicious wretch; the humble cottager; the eager student; the vengeful daemon; the prodigal son; the idealist; the un-sheltered one; the rejected one; the unloved one; all of these names fall under the two previously discussed categories: creature and monster. The two are abstractions of the themes of innocence and deprecation. Also, whether or not authenticity is reached by the progeny in the novel is one question among many which the novel leaves unanswered – and it is here in these pages that such questions are attempted to be answered. I will demonstrate that Shelley’s progeny reaches an authentic identity within two distinct modes: (i) of the creature and (ii) of the monster. Other questions of this paper’s focus deal with the motivations behind Shelley’s progeny – those considered virtuous during the beginning half of his life and those considered vicious during the latter half of his life. Are these motivations purely sociological? What do these motivations have to do with any sense of, or lack thereof, faith in some sort of God? What is that ominous force behind the demise of Dr. Frankenstein? Along with the answers to these questions, the text gives a cursory view into almost all schools of philosophical thought Shelley was familiar with. Of course, we experience these vicariously through characters of the novel, especially Victor and his creation. Within the novel we see alchemy, that first philosophy of nature, through Victor Frankenstein’s studies at Ingolstadt. Also, the reader gets a clear view into Lockean empiricism, through the creature’s cognitive development through sensual experience and reflection on that sense experience. The most present school of philosophical thought – one which the entire novel is surrounded by – is the thought of Existentialism. It is this reason alone which drives my inquiry here within these pages. I am driven to understand the existential struggle that is involved in obtaining an authentic identity. Shelley’s progeny is the exemplar for this. His plight is universal. It gives a view of existential struggles that are inevitable in the life of all people, such as the struggle for society, rejection of that society, adaptation, and self-reliance within a world that is merciless and un-agreeable. To relate the progeny’s struggle to that which is found in developing an authentic identity, I must articulate, as fully as possible, what exactly authenticity is. In order to do this, before all else, one must clearly define authenticity. The struggle which subsists within the process of obtaining such an ideal must also be surfaced. Identity, authenticity, and its development must be broken up into individual components, as to be understood in a light which shows their inter-workings. With the concept of authenticity, comes other, subsequent, topics which work with authenticity and are essential to it. These subsequent topics are disenchantment, instrumental reasoning, and dialogicity. There is a method to reaching the ideal of authenticity that involves all of these topics. The sequence of that method is as follows: (i) disenchantment, (ii) instrumental reasoning, (iii) dialogicity, and the product is authenticity. All of these come out of Charles Taylor’s work The Ethics of Authenticity. It is important to note here that (ii) instrumental reasoning is taken by Charles Taylor as a kind of objectivity. It is my aim to design this paper as an explicative process of reaching authenticity. To explain disenchantment, I will draw upon the works of Charles Taylor, Kevin W. Moore, Ravi Chopra, and H. C. Greisman. To explain instrumental reasoning, I will take from the works of Charles Taylor and Martha C. Nussbaum. To complete the task of understanding authenticity well, I will mainly draw from Taylor; other scholars such as Victoria Fareld and Yeuk-shing Mok will also be used as secondary material. In efforts of understanding dialogicity, I will draw from the work of Taylor, Matti Itkonen, and Robert MacGilleon. The fact that Taylor’s concept of authenticity is an ideal is important, for to confuse it with an end that is attainable is a mistake. Such a mistake would render the Monster’s struggle as temporal and of less meaning. Because the ideal of authenticity is never attainable, the Monster’s struggle is an infinite choice of perseverance. This endless struggle makes the attainment of authenticity rich and demanding of a strong commitment. This enables his struggle to become sacred, a question of temperament and will. The fact that Shelley’s Monster chooses to never end his struggle in search for an authentic identity makes his plight one of moral value – one which creates a universal ethos with its reader. All of this is written as a necessary requisite to obtain a clear understanding of Mary Shelley’s work. After discovering what is meant by authenticity – and understanding what sort of identity comes out of a life in pursuit of that ideal – one is finally able to apply this to the novel. To apply this to the novel, one must present an analysis of the novel as one would explicate a poem, pointing out every aspect of the said intention, i.e., the struggle and development of an authentic identity.
2018
Against the background of the current scholarly debate on the Neo-Gothic fascination with the body manipulation and dissection, this paper examines some recent transmutations of the archetype of the hybrid monster of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. More specifically, the paper focuses on Shelley Jackson's production, from the hypertexts Patchtwork Girl, or A Modern Monster (1995) and My Body. A Wunderkammer (1997) to The Melancholy of Anatomy (2002), up to her most recent project Skin (2010). Although she cannot be strictly considered part of the Neo-Gothic stream, her works exemplify significant ways in which post human thought intersects with Gothic textuality. By reimagining Frankenstein's archetype of the assembled creature, Jackson explores emerging postmodern paradigms of disturbingly porous and disjointed identities in the context of digital culture.
Frankenstein Revisited: the Legacy of Mary Shelley’s Masterpiece, 2018
This chapter addresses the presence of Mary Shelley’s masterpiece in videogames, both individually (from the 1987 Frankenstein for CPC to the 1992 Dr. Franken for Game Boy) and as part of a mash-up with other works and Gothic myths (Hollywood Monsters, 1997). It will analyse the complex cross-media relationship established among the literary work, the film adaptations and the videogames, paying particular attention to the intricate net of reinterpretations and revisions of Viktor Frankenstein but, above all, of his creature. Frankenstein’s monster transcends the original pages to become, in his own right, an autonomous cultural item, but also a misunderstood one, often subject to the tensions of a confused and even chaotic reception throughout history. As a character, his transition to the cinema has conditioned his image and the characteristics he evokes for a wider audience, and it has established this complex relationship with other creative spaces. The effort to reinterpret Shelley’s text, then, has been productive not only in films, comics, or on television, but also in videogames. This chapter is focused on the monster’s appearances in non-educative software, thus allowing us to better understand the semionautic implications of the reinterpretation of its mythos and ethos beyond the burden and restriction of the original work. Therefore, the analysis of the abovementioned videogames will establish the genealogy of cross-media relationships and intertextualities that has given birth to these games, as well as how the mash-up has added an additional layer of depth and complexity to the treatment of this iconic character.
Against the background of the current scholarly debate on the Neo-Gothic fascination with the body manipulation and dissection, this paper examines some recent transmutations of the archetype of the hybrid monster of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. More specifically, the paper focuses on Shelley Jackson's production, from the hypertexts Patchtwork Girl, or A Modern Monster (1995) and My Body. A Wunderkammer (1997) to The Melancholy of Anatomy (2002), up to her most recent project Skin (2010). Although she cannot be strictly considered part of the Neo-Gothic stream, her works exemplify significant ways in which post human thought intersects with Gothic textuality. By reimagining Frankenstein's archetype of the assembled creature, Jackson explores emerging postmodern paradigms of disturbingly porous and disjointed identities in the context of digital culture.
Conclusion: Frankenstein — Reproducing the Gothic
The Gothic and the Rule of Law, 1764–1820, 2007
In conclusion, I wish to return first to issues of authorship, authority, literary 'origin' and generic expectation that surface in relation to the late-eighteenth-and early-nineteenth-century texts of Godwin and Maturin. These novels, I have argued, mark a shift in the Gothic's relation to the modern rule of law, a shift that finds its fullest expression in this period, I suggest, in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The responses to these works (not least by the authors themselves) also reveal anxieties concerning questions of literary and political production and reproduction that tended in this period to centre upon and to be articulated through the Gothic. Godwin's preface to the first edition of Caleb Williams in 1794, for example, makes quite plain the radical political intent of the work. The fiction aims to communicate to a much wider readership a political truth well known to philosophers 'that government intrudes itself into every rank of society this is a truth highly worthy to be communicated to persons whom books of philosophy and science are never likely to be read'. 1 The form that this work takes is thus designed explicitly to extend its reach beyond the class to which the Political Enquiry would have been accessible. The preface posits the fiction as more significant in political than in literary terms and its subversive potential was acknowledged a year later when Godwin's publisher added a note to the subsequent edition explaining why this preface had been withdrawn from the original publication in May 1794: This preface was withdrawn in the original edition in compliance with the alarms of booksellers. 'Caleb Williams' made his first appearance in the world, in the same month in which the sanguinary plot 165