Now That Victor’s Chapters Are Almost Starting Up Everyone Make Sure To Put On Your Media Literacy

This is a dangerous sentiment for me to express, as an editor who spends most of my working life telling writers to knock it off with the 45-word sentences and the adverbs and tortured metaphors, but I do think we're living through a period of weird pragmatic puritanism in mainstream literary taste.

e.g. I keep seeing people talk about 'purple prose' when they actually mean 'the writer uses vivid and/or metaphorical descriptive language'. I've seen people who present themselves as educators offer some of the best genre writing in western canon as examples of 'purple prose' because it engages strategically in prose-poetry to evoke mood and I guess that's sheer decadence when you could instead say "it was dark and scary outside". But that's not what purple prose means. Purple means the construction of the prose itself gets in the way of conveying meaning. mid-00s horse RPers know what I'm talking about. Cerulean orbs flash'd fire as they turn'd 'pon rollforth land, yonder horizonways. <= if I had to read this when I was 12, you don't get to call Ray Bradbury's prose 'purple'.

I griped on here recently about the prepossession with fictional characters in fictional narratives behaving 'rationally' and 'realistically' as if the sole purpose of a made-up story is to convince you it could have happened. No wonder the epistolary form is having a tumblr renaissance. One million billion arguments and thought experiments about The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas that almost all evade the point of the story: that you can't wriggle out of it. The narrator is telling you how it was, is and will be, and you must confront the dissonances it evokes and digest your discomfort. 'Realistic' begins on the author's terms, that's what gives them the power to reach into your brain and fiddle about until sparks happen. You kind of have to trust the process a little bit.

This ultra-orthodox attitude to writing shares a lot of common ground with the tight, tight commodification of art in online spaces. And I mean commodification in the truest sense - the reconstruction of the thing to maximise its capacity to interface with markets. Form and function are overwhelmingly privileged over cloudy ideas like meaning, intent and possibility, because you can apply a sliding value scale to the material aspects of a work. But you can't charge extra for 'more challenging conceptual response to the milieu' in a commission drive. So that shit becomes vestigial. It isn't valued, it isn't taught, so eventually it isn't sought out. At best it's mystified as part of a given writer/artist's 'talent', but either way it grows incumbent on the individual to care enough about that kind of skill to cultivate it.

And it's risky, because unmeasurables come with the possibility of rejection or failure. Drop in too many allegorical descriptions of the rose garden and someone will decide your prose is 'purple' and unserious. A lot of online audiences seem to be terrified of being considered pretentious in their tastes. That creates a real unwillingness to step out into discursive spaces where you 🫵 are expected to develop and explore a personal relationship with each element of a work. No guard rails, no right answers. Word of god is shit to us out here. But fear of getting that kind of analysis wrong makes people hove to work that slavishly explains itself on every page. And I'm left wondering, what's the point of art that leads every single participant to the same conclusion? See Spot run. Run, Spot, run. Down the rollforth land, yonder horizonways. I just want to read more weird stuff.

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.

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.

Extremely funny to me. Ask and you shall receive, motherfucker.

we as the clervalstein nation do not talk enough about this chunk of text

some headshots I did for a Frankenstein assignment

i (obviously, if you’re familiar with my account at all) don’t perceive victor’s “abandonment” of the creature as his Great Sin (which was actually the creature leaving victor’s apartment of his own volition while victor was out on a stress-induced walk), but i do think you’re demonizing the creature here a little bit in the process of defending victor.

i think calling the antagonism the creature faced “minor” is wholly underselling it: he faced straight-up violence. he was turned loose with no direction nor knowledge of himself or anything around, in a world without a single being like him, and then was shot, beaten, and/or verbally assaulted any time he faced a person. he was met time and time again with violence or malice or fear by those around him. this is undeniable. you also seem to imply the creature’s tendency to respond to antagonism with aggression was somehow innate, which it definitely wasn’t—in the creature’s early chapters shelley devotes a lot of time to establishing just that, i.e. that creature was not born violent but warped that way by the society that rejected him. the creature outlines this clearly: “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” (1831). this transition from love and sympathy to vice and hatred is what his whole arc with the delaceys is about. 

of course, that in no way justifies the actions he chose to take, which to me have always been inexcusable regardless of the extreme circumstances that culminated in those decisions, but we still shouldn’t undermine the fact that there WERE extreme circumstances. in doing so you lose a lot of the thematic significance and commentary regarding society.

where creature’s fault lies, to me, is that he cultivated an understanding of society and its evils and of morality and empathy and of right from wrong. he feels this inherently: “For a long time I could not conceive how one man could go forth to murder his fellow… when I heard details of vice and bloodshed I turned away with disgust and loathing” (1831). but despite this, he CHOOSES revenge, on the delaceys, on victor, on the world as a whole, actively turning away from his own morality, his innate humanity and sense of goodness. he consciously chooses violence and revenge instead, while knowing and more importantly FEELING, to the extent that he abhors himself, that it was a moral wrong. he would be a lot less powerful of a narrator and as a character if his propensity to react with violence was somehow innate rather than the internal struggle and gray morality that we get in the novel.

but without that external factor (repeated negative interaction with society), he wouldn’t have actually developed this fatal flaw at all, because it was what eventually caused his knee-jerk violent response in the first place. that’s not to say i think any sort of hypothetical victor-raises-creature scenario could have been successful, it just may have been less violent—but victor was physically and mentally incapable of rearing a child at the time, and even disregarding that fact, there are so many other factors on why it wouldn’t have worked, including that, like you said, victor alone could not have satisfied the creature’s needs for company, because his need for romantic and sexual intimacy with another being like him would still exist. ultimately there was no chance for a good outcome for either of them, and this is why frankenstein makes such a good tragedy!

there's something that doesn't really get talked about a lot in the critiques of victor's actions in frankenstein, which is that even if victor hadn't committed what a lot of people view as his Great Sin, abandoning the creature, it still wouldn't have solved anything. the creature's main grievances beyond being angry at victor for his abandonment are that he's hideous and therefore everyone will hate him, and that he's alone in his entire species and therefore has no girlfriend. and while some of that can be mitigated by victor's involvement, victor being present isn't gonna stop other people from thinking that the creature is butt-ugly, nor is it gonna deal with any desire he might have for romantic or sexual intimacy with someone he shares common traits with. and it is also crucially not going to curb the creature's tendency within his personality to respond to every minor antagonism with violent aggression that oftentimes culminates in the straight up murder of innocent people. that's his fatal flaw and it doesn't go away just because there's no external factor involved anymore. victor could be a father figure to the creature from day one and there could still be one person who calls him an ugly abomination at the wrong moment, or victor could say he's not making another experiment for whatever reason, and then boom! we arrive once again at the child killing and the framing family friends for it and the boyfriend killing and the wife killing as the situation escalates, because one of the reasons the book goes the way it does is that the creature himself cannot get out of his own fucking way and makes the situation infinitely worse to the point where mutual destruction is both his and victor's only way out.

i don’t think victors misinterpretation of the creatures threat “i will be with you on your wedding night” as a warning of his own impending death was to show victor’s hubris or self-centeredness, but instead shelley employing a deliberate display of dramatic irony, which is common within gothic literature. the gothic genre thrives on tension, dread, and suspense, and gothic narratives often involve secrets and psychological turmoil, all of which dramatic irony enhances. it also further cements frankenstein as a tragedy and, because of the disconnect between what characters perceive and what the reader anticipates, it reinforces the theme of fate throughout the novel (which is particularly pervasive in the 1831 version). but hey whatever this might be the rampant victor defender in me speaking 

It's crazy to me how people criticise Victor for making the creature without any thought of the consequences, but then also criticise him for not going along with creating a second one after considering the potential consequences

After being given life, the creature became his own person, developing his own identity. If Victor created another one, they would also develop their own identity and it is reasonable to imagine that their values would be different and they may not want to go away with the creature, or agree to live in solitude away from humanity. I think Victor stopping to realise that shows an amount of character development that people don't really acknowledge