Final Paper:The Differences between Three Mediums Displaying the Tradition of Frankenstein
This Paper was completed in accordance with the Honor Code. Sara Krome
The Differences between Three Mediums Displaying the Tradition of Frankenstein
Frankenstein. In large, bold letters, the main character of the tale is established in the very title. A male character, whose narration dominates much of the novel, and who enjoys all the freedoms given to a man of his time simply because of his gender. It is interesting, however, that this novel was written by a woman, who was both a feminist and a radical. Knowing this, it is additionally surprising that Mary Shelley created such a secondary female character for her book, whose retiring nature seems to completely contrast Shelley’s. The main female character, Elizabeth, epitomizes every ideal quality for a woman in her time: soft-spoken, modest, and docile. In Kenneth Branagh’s film Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, however, Elizabeth assumes a much more active role, and stands apart as her own character, seeming to defy convention; in this way, the character seems to more closely resemble Mary Shelley than Elizabeth. One significant difference between this particular movie adaptation and the book clearly is the portrayal of Elizabeth, as well as the effect of her role on the story; furthermore, the movie provides an interesting connection between the heroine and Mary Shelley herself, highlighting the idea that the presentation of women is influenced by the views of society at the time. Shelley Jackson’s revolutionary hypertext Patchwork Girl further expands upon feminist themes in the tradition of Frankenstein. Her text, written in modern times, highlights the new freedoms women have acquired since Shelley’s time. By studying all three mediums, one can see the progress that the rights of women has made, as well as the fallacies that one day will hopefully see change.
Many female audience members may applaud the more egalitarian role Elizabeth takes in the film version. Indeed, she seems to insist standing as Victor’s equal, rather than patiently wait upon his whim. In the novel, Elizabeth is presented as a gift to Victor; his mother teases him, saying “I have a pretty present for my Victor- to-morrow he shall have it,” (44). Thus Victor assumed, “She was to be mine only,” (45). He thought he had complete possession over Elizabeth, thereby relegating her status to that of a mere belonging. Furthermore, it was assumed by all members of the Frankenstein family that upon reaching the proper age, Victor and Elizabeth would marry. Indeed, his father tells him “I have always looked forward to your marriage with our dear Elizabeth” (133). Thus, Victor was always made aware that his matrimonial future lay with Elizabeth, and repeatedly alludes to it throughout the book.
Elizabeth as seen in the movie, however, was quite unrecognizable from the one in the book; she was clearly presented as her own independent individual, and did not demurely submit to Victor’s possession. Indeed, she was far more playful and flirtatious, attempting to distract Victor from his studies, a feat the more retiring literary Elizabeth would never have dared to try. Furthermore, her romantic relationship with Victor was not obviously settled since childhood. In the film, he specifically asked her to marry him before he journeyed off to school, establishing their feelings for each other for the first time. In a very passionate scene, Victor begs Elizabeth to come with him, a jarring contrast from the book; he never seems to passionately need Elizabeth in print, while in the movie he cannot bear to be parted from her. Elizabeth, even more conversely, refuses to go with him, saying she is needed at home. Clearly, Elizabeth is not simply an appendage of Victor, but is her own person and recognizes her own needs as well as her fiancé’s, and is willing to fulfill those personal needs.
Several scenes were conceived for the movie that were not at all present in the book. One such addition was Elizabeth’s method of coping with Victor’s self-alienation. In the book, Elizabeth seems to wait patiently for Victor, and when the entire family wonders at his lack of letters, it is Victor’s childhood friend Henry Clerval who goes to investigate. In the movie, however, Elizabeth passionately despairs of the lack of correspondence with her fiancé; she tears apart his letters – ones that she wrote herself to continue the appearance that he loved her- and sobs because she assumes he no longer cares for her. At encouragement from family friend and servant Justine, Elizabeth travels to England herself to discover the cause of Victor’s self-imposed ostracization. Clearly, the film version of Elizabeth lacks the feminine qualities of gentle patience and demure acceptance that the long-suffering literary Elizabeth is praised for. The film Elizabeth steps out of the bounds of what is considered womanly by making a dangerous journey by herself. Furthermore, she demands an explanation from Victor and when he tells her that he is involved in something more important than his relationship with her, she turns and leaves him, telling him goodbye; this proves that Elizabeth’s existence is not wholly wrapped up in Victor, and that she is able to assert herself by being strong enough and courageous enough to leave him when he cannot seem to reciprocate her feelings. Elizabeth also determines to leave after Victor insists their wedding must be postponed, but fails to give an explanation; she goes so far as to pack her belongings and prepare to walk out the door. However, when he promises to tell his secret, she stays; clearly, Victor bends to her in this case, rather than her simply waiting for his decision. Though Victor’s selfishness is retained in the movie, Elizabeth’s individuality allows her react differently to it.
Yet another scene included in the film sets it apart dramatically from the novel; after the creature murders Elizabeth, Victor uses the same machine that spawned the monster to resurrect her. Indeed, the manner in which she was murdered was far more gory. In the book, the monster strangled Elizabeth to death, leaving a “murderous mark of the fiend’s grasp… on her neck” (168), which is certainly gruesome enough; however, in the movie, the creature rips out Elizabeth’s heart, a horrifying, vividly bloody clip. Victor leaves her alone in the bedroom, and comes back to find the monster astride her on the bed. Though Elizabeth attempts to take control of the situation with reasonable words, Victor reacts violently; this instigates the monster to rip out Elizabeth’s heart, and push her limp body into the flame of a candle, scarring her further still. Even while her life is threatened, Elizabeth is still taking control of her own well-being, and showing that she does not need a man to take care of her and protect her. Indeed, Victor in some ways only exacerbated the situation further. In an attempt to resurrect her, Victor must place her head on another body, leaving her just as scarred and ugly as his creation, who assumes Elizabeth was made for him based upon his previous request of Victor. When Elizabeth remembers Victor, notices her own scars, and realizes what has happened, she smashes a lamp over her incongruous body and burns herself to death. Thus, Elizabeth proves that while Victor may try to control both her life and death, she is the one who ultimately makes decisions for herself. By committing suicide, Elizabeth once again asserts her independence and claims her fate as her own.
Interestingly enough, the character of Elizabeth in the novel seemed to possess all the feminine qualities Mary Shelley lacked; furthermore, the Elizabeth in the film seemed to more closely mirror Mary Shelley herself than the character of Elizabeth she conceived. Mary Shelley certainly did not live according to the standards of a docile, domesticated, and obedient woman. Indeed, influenced as she was by the reputation of her feminist mother, and because she “accepted much of the radical sexual and political philosophy of her parents” (Introduction 4), Shelley lived a rather scandalous life at the time, running away with a then-married man, Percy Shelley, and conceiving dark tales, such as Frankenstein, that would have been deemed unsuitable for her supposed feminine sensibilities. In many ways, then, Shelley more closely resembled the film version of Elizabeth, in that both were independent, assertive women for their time. However, feminism has developed drastically and the treatment of woman has evolved dramatically since Shelley’s era; indeed, she was clearly ahead of her time, in that she would fit in easily with society today in terms of her feminist thoughts. What was considered unusual for a woman to want in the eighteenth century, such as the ability to vote and protections from sexual harassment and assault, is now accepted today. Elizabeth’s portrayal in the modern movie version also reflects the great strides feminism has made, and leaves readers wondering how differently the novel of Frankenstein would have played out had Shelley penned her famed tale in modern times.
Mary Shelley herself was unconventional, yet she created a conventional female character in Frankenstein. Though she may have simply been forced to adhere to social pressures and expectations in creating a docile, feminine Elizabeth, her ideals and own lifestyle nevertheless were very advanced for her time. Shelley Jackson, however, was fortunate to live in modern times, in which a significant amount of Western women have claimed many of the rights Mary Shelley was denied. Jackson wrote/created the hypertext Patchwork Girl, clearly inspired by Shelley’s Frankenstein. In Patchwork Girl, Jackson expands upon and recreates many of Shelley’s ideas; Jackson explores what would have happened had Frankenstein finished his morbid task of constructing a female counterpart for his monster. However, in a truly feminine move, the female monster abandons the male completely, and forms a close, even sexual, relationship with Mary Shelley. Not only does Patchwork Girl expound upon Mary Shelley’s feminine ideals, but it introduces modern feminist freedoms, and shows how far Western society has advanced and how far women have come since Frankenstein’s initial publication in 1818; however, some aspects of this hypertext highlight continuing restraints that exist today for women, such as persisting ideals of beauty and worth. Patchwork Girl follows the journey of an unconventional female, like Mary Shelley herself; however, unlike Elizabeth, the female monster is unapologetic in her assertion of her rights and her struggles against continuing limitations of society.
One of the most obvious examples of modern feminist rights is the lesbian sexual relation between the Patchwork Girl and Mary Shelley. Rather than docilely submitting to a union with the male monster created by Frankenstein, the female, known as Patchwork Girl, instead stands apart as her own independent being and refuses to have her existence subsumed beneath her male counterpart. Indeed, not only does she reject male companionship, but she engages in a sexual relationship with her creator, Mary Shelley. Furthermore, Jackson presents Mary Shelley as desiring this relationship with her creation, despite the fact that she has a husband. One section describes a latent desire of Shelley’s. “I wish that I had cut off a part of me, something Percy would not miss, but something dear to me, and given it to be a part of her. I would live on in her, and she would know me as I know myself. I fear this but crave it” (female trouble). Thus, Shelley feels that much of her identity is wrapped up in Percy, a man; she wishes that she could preserve a special part of herself in her female monster, who she desires and craves. Jackson additionally describes intimate bedroom scenes between Shelley and the Patchwork Girl. Phrases such as “Last night I lay in her arms, my monster, and for the first time laid my hand on her skin” (I lay), “In bed, she was curiously shy…” (shy), her gaze flickered distractedly over my body and the disordered bedclothes” (pity), and “We turned this way and that, slipping at times into reverie” (turned) leave no doubt in the reader’s mind that a sexual relationship has been consummated. The fact that a lesbian interaction can be described attest to the long strides feminism has taken since Shelley’s time. Indeed, women have undergone a sexual revolution, in that today lesbian couples are recognized in society, literature, and art. Not only does the female monster reject a male companion, upon whom women were entirely dependent in Shelley’s time, but she also takes a female for a lover; thus, the idea is established that women no longer need men financially, legally, or even sexually. Indeed, in some cases, female companionship may even be considered superior to that of males, proving that society today is more egalitarian than during Shelley’s time. Nevertheless, there are facets in society that still serve to place women in a more servile position.
Though women have proved themselves men’s intellectual equals, high standards of beauty continue to be applied. Much of a woman’s worth seems to be based upon her physical appearance. For Patchwork Girl especially, this acts as a handicap. Like the male monster in Frankenstein, Patchwork Girl’s appearance is hideous and terrifying. She is composed of “many unpopular colors” (beauty patches), with “dull yellow eyes” (labor) and seams crisscrossing her limbs like scars; she even calls herself “the supreme freak” (but I’m glad). Not only was her outward appearance repulsive, her feminine graces were also severely lacking. “I was not a success as a lady. I was more like a caricature of one, for those gestures, with their delicacy, sat quite strangely on my oversized figure” (Femininity). The implication here is that if a female does not have a womanly appearance or stature, then she will be severely lacking in feminine attributes. Thus, feminine appearance and behavior seem to be synonymous with each other; because Patchwork Girl looked ugly and unattractive, she inherently acted in a rude and vulgar (neither of which are considered particularly feminine qualities), rendering her indelicate, and thus unwomanly.
Furthermore, matrimony and male authority can still detract freedom from women’s lives. In her story, Jackson describes how Shelley seems to long to live vicariously through her monster. “She has seen things I will never see; she remembers more than I will experience in my whole life. And yet she is hungry for more. I know she will leave me soon.” (female troubles). Mary Shelley, because she is the sheltered married woman, does not have the freedoms that Patchwork Girl has to explore and experience. This implies that only ugly women can be independent; furthermore, this independence is not chosen by the women, but rather because they are so ugly no man would want them, they have no choice but to be independent. Shelley dreads the day her hideous, yet free, monster will leave her, because then she will have no new experiences to hear about, albeit second hand. Clearly, beauty is still tied up in a woman’s marital worth, and a woman’s value is still judged based upon her physical appearance. Women have yet to shed the confinement imposed upon them by society, which seems to say that a woman must be beautiful to feel valuable and lovable.
Many studies have been devoted to the differences between men and women, feminine and masculine. Though most of the qualities that seem particular to each gender are social constructs imposed upon individuals- that is, society teaches children from a young age which behaviors and beliefs makes one appear masculine and one feminine; children are not born with those specific qualities. Some of these interesting stereotypes seem to emerge in Patchwork Girl. For instance, in spite of all her stitches and scars, Mary Shelley still thought, “In this same way she was beautiful” (she stood). Even though Patchwork Girl is considered by everyone else to be ugly and repulsive, Mary Shelley is able to look past her outward appearance to the inside, where her personality and intellect reside. In today’s culture, it is widely accepted that the male gender places a certain value on outward appearance, and that in general they favor attractive women. Shelley, however, because she is a woman, places less of an emphasis on looks and values personality more. Thus, Patchwork Girl’s hideous appearance does not matter as much to Shelley. Furthermore, Shelley reacts differently than Frankenstein when she sees her creation. While Frankenstein abandons his monster in horror, leading the creature to abhor mankind, Shelley realizes “Curiosity, compassion, and a kind of fellow feeling was the stronger impulse, and I forced myself to continue” (sight). Though Shelley also felt repulsed, she allowed her feelings of compassion, sympathy, and kindness to determine how she acted; she recognized that her creation was feeling, sentient being like herself, and did not judge Patchwork Girl’s actions based on her looks. In this way, Jackson almost presents females as the more superior role; because females are seemingly more accepting of other’s appearances, they are led to a better understanding of people- and creations. Thus, a complete reversal has taken place from Frankenstein, given that the strengths of women are highlighted to emphasize the weaknesses of men.
Written media, be it books or films or hypertext, often display of the modes of thought and belief in the time period in which they were written. While Shelley’s Frankenstein was written during an era when women were repressed, Kenneth Branagh’s film showed how modern day philosophies affect the interpretation of an older story. Shelley Jackson’s bold and unique work clearly shows the new freedoms women have acquired in the two centuries that have passed between the publication of Frankenstein, while Branagh’s film is more of a combination between new ideas and older traditions. Clearly, from these three forms of medium, all focused around the same central idea of Frankenstein, progress occurs in each passing year. While many problems still exist for women, such as the correlation between beauty and worth, the drastic changes presented by these three mediums leaves readers wondering where the next stage of progression will lead society.
Evalution:
The Merging of Elizabeth Lavenza and Mary Shelley into One
The Merging of Elizabeth Lavenza and Mary Shelley into One
Frankenstein. In large, bold letters, the main character of the tale is established in the very title. A male character, whose narration dominates much of the novel, and who enjoys all the freedoms given to a man of his time simply because of his gender. It is interesting, however, that this novel was written by a woman, who was both a feminist and a radical. Knowing this, it is additionally surprising that Mary Shelley created such a secondary female character for her book, whose retiring nature seems to completely contrast Shelley’s. The main female character, Elizabeth, epitomizes every ideal quality for a woman in her time: soft-spoken, modest, and docile. In Kenneth Branagh’s film Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, however, Elizabeth assumes a much more active role, and stands apart as her own character, seeming to defy convention; in this way, the character seems to more closely resemble Mary Shelley than Elizabeth. One significant difference between this particular movie adaptation and the book clearly is the portrayal of Elizabeth, as well as the effect of her role on the story; furthermore, the movie provides an interesting connection between the heroine and Mary Shelley herself, highlighting the idea that the presentation of women is influenced by the views of society at the time.
Many female audience members may applaud the more egalitarian role Elizabeth takes in the film version. Indeed, she seems to insist standing as Victor’s equal, rather than patiently wait upon his whim. In the novel, Elizabeth is presented as a gift to Victor; his mother teases him, saying “I have a pretty present for my Victor- to-morrow he shall have it,” (44). Thus Victor assumed, “She was to be mine only,” (45). He thought he had complete possession over Elizabeth, and her status was relegated to that of a mere belonging. Furthermore, it was assumed by all members of the Frankenstein family that upon reaching the proper age, Victor and Elizabeth would marry. Indeed, his father tells him “I have always looked forward to your marriage with our dear Elizabeth” (133). Thus, Victor was always made aware that his matrimonial future lay with Elizabeth, and repeatedly alludes to it throughout the book.
Elizabeth as seen in the movie, however, was quite unrecognizable from the one in the book; she was clearly presented as her own independent individual, and did not demurely submit to Victor’s possession. Indeed, she was far more playful and flirtatious, attempting to distract Victor from his studies, a feat the more retiring literary Elizabeth would never have dared to try. Furthermore, her romantic relationship with Victor was not obviously settled since childhood. In the film, he specifically asked her to marry him before he journeyed off to school, establishing their feelings for each other for the first time. In a very passionate scene, Victor begs Elizabeth to come with him, a jarring contrast from the book; he never seems to passionately need Elizabeth in print, while in the movie he cannot bear to be parted from her. Elizabeth, even more conversely, refuses to go with him, saying she is needed at home. Clearly, Elizabeth is not simply an appendage of Victor, but is her own person and recognizes her own needs as well as her fiancé’s, and is willing to fulfill those personal needs.
Several scenes were conceived for the movie that were not at all present in the book. One such addition was Elizabeth’s method of coping with Victor’s self-alienation. In the book, Elizabeth seems to wait patiently for Victor, and when the entire family wonders at his lack of letters, it is Victor’s childhood friend Henry Clerval who goes to investigate. In the movie, however, Elizabeth passionately despairs of the lack of correspondence with her fiancé; she tears apart his letters – ones that she wrote herself to continue the appearance that he loved her- and sobs because she assumes he no longer cares for her. At encouragement from family friend and servant Justine, Elizabeth travels to England herself to discover the cause of Victor’s self-imposed ostracization. Clearly, the film version of Elizabeth lacks the feminine qualities of gentle patience and demure acceptance that the long-suffering literary Elizabeth is praised for. The film Elizabeth steps out of the bounds of what is considered womanly by making a dangerous journey by herself. Furthermore, she demands an explanation from Victor and when he tells her that he is involved in something more important than his relationship with her, she turns and leaves him, telling him goodbye; this proves that Elizabeth’s existence is not wholly wrapped up in Victor, and that she is able to assert herself by being strong enough and courageous enough to leave him when he cannot seem to reciprocate her feelings. Elizabeth also determines to leave after Victor insists their wedding must be postponed, but fails to give an explanation; she goes so far as to pack her belongings and prepare to walk out the door. However, when he promises to tell his secret, she stays; clearly, Victor bends to her in this case, rather than her simply waiting for his decision. Though Victor’s selfishness is retained in the movie, Elizabeth’s individuality allows her react differently to it.
Yet another scene included in the film sets it apart dramatically from the novel; after the creature murders Elizabeth, Victor uses the same machine that spawned the monster to resurrect her. Indeed, the manner in which she was murdered was far more gory. In the book, the monster strangled Elizabeth to death, leaving a “murderous mark of the fiend’s grasp… on her neck” (168), which is certainly gruesome enough; however, in the movie, the creature rips out Elizabeth’s heart, a horrifying, vividly bloody clip. Victor must place her head on another body, leaving her just as scarred and ugly as his creation, who thinks Elizabeth was made for him. When Elizabeth remembers Victor, notices her own scars, and realizes what has happened, she smashes a lamp over her incongruous body and burns herself to death. Thus, Elizabeth proves that while Victor may try to control both her life and death, she is the one who ultimately makes decisions for herself. By committing suicide, Elizabeth once again asserts her independence and claims her fate as her own.
Interestingly enough, the character of Elizabeth in the novel seemed to possess all the feminine qualities Mary Shelley lacked; furthermore, the Elizabeth in the film seemed to more closely mirror Mary Shelley herself than the character of Elizabeth she conceived. Mary Shelley certainly did not live according to the standards of a docile, domesticated, and obedient woman. Indeed, influenced as she was by the reputation of her feminist mother, and because she “accepted much of the radical sexual and political philosophy of her parents” (Introduction 4), Shelley lived a rather scandalous life at the time, running away with a then-married man, Percy Shelley, and conceiving dark tales, such as Frankenstein, that would have been deemed unsuitable for her supposed feminine sensibilities. In many ways, then, Shelley more closely resembled the film version of Elizabeth, in that both were independent, assertive women for their time. However, feminism has developed drastically and the treatment of woman has evolved dramatically since Shelley’s era; indeed, she was clearly ahead of her time, in that she would fit in easily with society today in terms of her feminist thoughts. What was considered unusual for a woman to want in the eighteenth century, such as the ability to vote and protections from sexual harassment and assault, is now accepted today. Elizabeth’s portrayal in the modern movie version also reflects the great strides feminism has made, and leaves readers wondering how differently the novel of Frankenstein would have played out had Shelley penned her famed tale in modern times.
