Proposal: A comparative study of the impact of the presentation of Frankenstein’s
creature in the text Frankenstein, using different literary forms, including;
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Nick Dear’s Frankenstein and Liz
Lochhead’s poetry collection Dreaming Frankenstein.
Name
Scottish Candidate Number:
Forres Academy
Centre Number: 5203031
Word Count: 3924
1
Frankenstein is justifiably one of the most celebrated classics of its era. The original,
conceived in Switzerland by a young girl, collaborated the ideas of modern science and the
powers and dangers of mankind – encompassing a broad spectrum of theories and
possibilities. Owing to its timeless concepts and ideas, Frankenstein has been held in
admiration by writers, poets, linguists, filmmakers and playwrights alike and this has
encouraged the re-interpretation of the text countless times. In particular, Nick Dear’s modern
drama Frankenstein has sparked interest and praise from critics with its radical new
perspective. Contemporary Scottish writer Liz Lochhead has embodied the central themes
and characters within the text in her abstract delivery of her poetry. Each literary form offers
the text different opportunities to engage with the audience and provoke different ideas. The
effect of this is that we are left with contrasting values from each text.
Each text introduces the creature in a different way; each presenting an individual
interpretation of the birth of the creature and the time preceding its animation which
ultimately effects the relationship between the character and the audience. Shelley’s
Frankenstein is portrayed so that we feel sympathy for Victor Frankenstein, which, through
association, evokes disgust and hatred towards the creature. This view is cemented in the time
before the traumatic arrival of the creature where Victor’s distress and anguish are relayed by
Robert Walton in the embedded narrative, which leaves the reader in a place of moral
uncertainty:
“How can I see such a noble creature destroyed by misery…
He is so gentle, yet so wise; his mind is so cultivated; and when
he speaks, although his words are culled with the choicest art,
yet they flow with rapidity and unparalleled eloquence.”1
Such articulated language and expression is used when describing Victor, that he instantly
becomes an admirable and respected being. By portraying Victor as an honourable and noble
man, Shelley has made his downfall seem all the more tragic – by having the account related
by an outsider (Robert Walton), the conformation of the tragedy is even more poignant. The
reader is instantly prepared to hate and fear whatever it is that has caused such a “paroxysm
1
Shelley, Mary, Frankenstein, (Wordsworth Editions Limited, 1993), p23.
2
of grief”2 to such a “noble creature”3 and this association means we are predisposed to dislike
the creature before he is even properly introduced. Conversely, in Nick Dear’s Frankenstein
the time period before the creature is born is very short, with the play opening at the
commencing of the “birth”. The exclusion of Victor from this scene is significant in that our
initial perceptions of the creature are unbiased and self-formed. This preliminary, alternative
focus is confirmed by the playwright himself in an interview conducted with Nick Dear and
Danny Boyle (director) where he professes:
“There was a great central dynamic in the middle of the book
which was the creature’s story, which was never told.”4
It is clear in the very first scene of the play, that the focus will be centred from the creature’s
perspective; starting from the very moment of his birth. Whereas in Shelley’s original, the
creature is primarily conveyed as a “memory of…evils”5 and a “miserable monster”6, Dear’s
version gives the creature a very human quality with the opening scene:
“There’s the sound of a heartbeat. / BOM-BOOM. / Then another
heartbeat, then another: BOM-BOOM. BOM-BOOM.”7
The very thing upon which life depends and which is so often taken for granted. By
highlighting this fact right from the opening, Dear is stressing the fact that the creature is in
actuality, human and this sentiment stays with the audience throughout the entire play. By
immediately opening with a very intense intimacy between the audience and creature; a
“wonderful empathy”8 is created. The drama allows for the vulnerability and helplessness of
the newly born creature to become apparent, appealing to the caring and nurturing instincts of
human nature and allowing them to take effect. Here we can see that the elusion from Victor
in the opening scenes of this text is crucial as:
“You do not participate through the eyes of the scientist…
2
Shelley, p23.
Shelley, p22.
4
Dear, Nick, Interview conducted by Christopher Frayling about Frankenstein, The National Theatre, London,
June 2012
5
Shelley, p24.
6
Shelley, p26.
7
Dear, Nick, Frankenstein, (London, 2011) Scene 1 p3.
8
Boyle, Danny, Interview conducted by Christopher Frayling about Frankenstein, The National Theatre,
London, June 2012
3
3
but you see it from the point of view of the creature.”9
an idea which is critical in subsequent scenes.
The novel and drama versions of Frankenstein have very obvious, contrasting portrayals of
the creatures in the early introduction of the texts in comparison to that of poetry; where both
portrayals are seamlessly combined in a subtle manner. The birth of the creature is
metaphorically portrayed in An Abortion through the calving of a cow, and as with Shelley’s
representation; our feelings towards the unborn animal are, in the beginning, ones of loathing
and revulsion. Here, we should also note the significance of the title; an unmissable
foreshadow for what is inevitably about to come. The poem deals with time prior to the birth
in a way which is abstract from that of the two previous texts, by contextualising it in a
modern day setting and replacing the roles of Victor and his creature with that of an in-calf
heifer. By using the cow as the central “character”, the true essence of the poem is preserved,
without intervention from language and speech; and the essential elements are most profound
within the text. The torment of the cow mimics that of Victor in Shelley’s depiction with her:
“neck distended / in a Guernica of distress.”10
as the unborn creature is described in a detrimental way as:
“primeval / as the pulsing locomotion of some / terrible underwater creature.”11
The graphic detail of the unborn creature reveals it as an unstoppable, destructive force which
provokes the reader into feeling sympathy for the mother. Yet, we do not feel the same hatred
and loathing towards the unborn creature as we do in Shelley’s portrayal preceding the birth;
in fact, because of the presentation of it – our feelings towards the creature are not enforced
or apparent. Although the distress of the cow is made evident, the natural setting and
circumstance in which the calf is discovered makes it blameless, and as a reader, we feel
surprisingly little towards it.
9
Boyle, Interview (2012)
Lochhead, Liz, “An Abortion”, Dreaming Frankenstein(1984), (Edinburgh, 2003)
11
Lochhead, “An Abortion”
10
4
This is aided by the narration of the poem, by an onlooker who feels obligation and
preference neither for the heifer or the calf, and who we can assume to be an outsider who has
little or no sentiment. He appears to be of a rational mind, and it is this initial voice of the
outsider (like that of Robert Walton) which allows the reader to approach the text from the
same, unprejudiced distance. Here we can see how each text offers a different presentation of
our initial experience with the creature. Mary Shelley’s conservative approach when it comes
to revealing the creature bases our judgements purely on second-hand information, which
constructs our opinions of the creature in a negative way. Similarly, Lochhead uses an
intermediate to narrate – however, rather than aiding to form the reader’s opinion of the
creature, in this case, our perceptions are somewhat unclear because of this. On the other
hand, Dear’s interpretation of Frankenstein completely forgoes the eponymous Victor, which
excludes not only the presence of one of the main characters, but also of the narrative role
which means the initial presentation of the creature is far more positive.
Lochhead approaches the conception of the creature in a completely different way yet again
in Dreaming Frankenstein, where the process of the creation of the creature is highlighted.
Here, Lochhead adopts the role of the young Mary Shelley when she initially came up with
idea of her renowned “Frankenstein”, where she “dreamed [it] up while she was staying in
Switzerland 12. A sinister quality is introduced in the poem when the idea first occurs:
“she / woke up with him in / her head, in her bed.”13
as if the idea of the creature was so great that it commanded physical presence and is
reinforced:
“So you’re who’s been sleeping / in my bed.”14
Similarly, Shelley describes the sudden apparition of the creature in Victor’s sleeping
chambers:
12
Unknown Author, English Literature, Frankenstein
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english_literature/prosefrankenstein/0prose_frankenstein_contrev1.s
html (September 2012)
13
Lochhead, Liz, “Dreaming Frankenstein”, Dreaming Frankenstein(1984), (Edinburgh, 2003)
14
Lochhead, Liz, “Smirnoff for Karloff”, Dreaming Frankenstein(1984), (Edinburgh, 2003)
5
“I started from my sleep with horror, a cold dew covered my forehead, my teeth
chattered, and every limb became convulsed: when by the dim and yellow light
of the moon, as it forced its way through the window shutters, I beheld the wretch
– the miserable monster who I created. He held up the curtain of the bed;
and his eyes, if eyes they may be called, were fixed on me.”15
The reader is left with the image of a formidable, lumbering monster towering over the
terrified and vulnerable Victor, which automatically nourishes our previous fear towards him;
yet it is worth noting that while it is difficult to see the creature in any other light – in reality
he is a newly born child, abandoned and left for dead and unaccustomed to the ways of man.
Where Shelley’s unveiling of the creature is a disturbing and frightening experience, further
reinforcing the fear and caution we already have towards the creature – Lochhead poses the
realisation in a far more composed and controlled manner. The measured and calm tone of
the poetry allows this scene to appear almost dreamlike in emergence, and rather than being a
terrifying experience, it is more a quizzical one. While maintaining the obscurity of the
creature’s presence by his unexpected arrival in the “bed”, Lochhead makes him far less
opposing and simply far less threatening with the subtle suggestion that his presence has been
accepted. This, in comparison with Shelley’s violent intrusion, allows the reader time with
which to consider the creature: his presence, although foreign, is acknowledged in a way that
it seems as though “Victor” is questioning himself, rather than the creature:
“he was inside her / and getting him out again / would be agony”16
Enhancing the idea that the initial idea of the creature commanded a physical presence, here
we can see that the idea (and furthermore) the creature itself, is a physical part of Victor
which are so integrated, removing them would cause not only pain – but unbearable “agony”.
Both of these interpretations are from the viewpoint of Victor - or in the case of Lochhead’s
portrayals, the metaphorical Victor – but Dear’s Frankenstein sees Victor interrupt the
creature:
15
16
Shelley p46.
Lochhead, “Dreaming Frankenstein”
6
“Victor goes to the creature, who doesn’t see him at first”17
and this role reversal is significant in itself. As well as sustaining the perspective as that of
the creature, it also demonstrates that both characters (Victor and his creation) are connected
in an inseparable way; and this sudden intrusion in both of their lives serves as the moment
from which life as they know it has changed. It may seem somewhat ironic as the newly born
creature is barely aware of life, let alone how his – no matter how unconventional – has
changed, yet it prompts us to thinking what would have happened had the creation and
creator never met? Though seemingly oblivious to the importance of his maker, the bond
formed between the two is unmistakable – even if they are not aware of it themselves.
The creature maintains a fairly consistent role throughout all three texts; he is a newly born,
vulnerable and helpless creature: “flopping / to the grass,”18 this listless motion confirmed by
the onomatopoeic “flopping” gives the newly produced “baby” defencelessness which can, in
no way, pose him as a threat. The swiftness of the “flopping” motion is mimicked in the play;
“He falls. He lies still”19 and once again in Shelley’s original with the creature’s “inanimate
body”20 Yet, as he matures and grows his experiences and interactions with the world around
him shape him into the literate, articulate and competent being. It is the creatures
observations, and the way these are portrayed in the different literary forms which allow such
different perspectives to come to the forefront. The poetry once again offers an abstract view
of the creatures’ experiences, primarily one with the old, blind man De Lacey, who takes the
Creature into his home and cares for him and teaches him the ways of language and
philosophy:
“The blind man did not hate me.”21
The simple opening statement of the poem, is so modest and holds so much truth that it is
hard to misinterpret. The creature’s surprise that there is someone in the world who does not
“hate” him saddens the reader, and makes us consider once again the undue suffering which
17
Dear, Scene 3 p4.
Lochhead, “An Abortion”
19
Dear, Scene 2 p4.
20
Shelley, p45.
21
Lochhead, Liz, “What the Creature Said”, Dreaming Frankenstein(1984), (Edinburgh, 2003)
18
7
the creature has relinquished. Their relationship is bittersweet however, with the reader
realising that the Creature is only accepted as De Lacey cannot see him:
“Then I saw his / milky eyes stared right through me”22
This revelation of the creature’s makes us wonder if he can ever truly be accepted. Since
Dear’s Frankenstein is told from the point of view of the creature; the creature’s experiences
of human interactions are perhaps most intense. The audience are aware the creatures
unfamiliarity with humans, so are not as shocked as would be expected at the creature’s
unorthodox greeting of a prostitute in distress:
“The Creature goes to her and immediately drops to his knees
and puts his nose to her vagina and sniffs, hard.”23
This animalistic portrayal, instead of disgusting the audience as it might appear, allows us to
see the essentials and importance of instinct. Here it is important to note, that it is the
creature’s apparent lack of humanity which separates him from the rest of mankind – as this
primal behaviour would not be acceptable, yet, we must also take into account that it is
humanity which has allowed this vulnerable young creature to wander helplessly, without any
guidance whatsoever. The chronology of the text is also significant here, as this incident
occurs near the beginning and the audience experience it first hand, however, in Shelley’s
Frankenstein, the creature’s interactions with humans are relayed much later in the text – and
his memories and accounts after the events have occurred. His speech in Shelley’s
Frankenstein, although directed at Victor, can be considered almost soliloquy like in their
deliverance. The intensity of his reflection is so personal, it seems almost as though we are
intruding on his private thoughts:
“I awoke…half-frightened, as it were instinctively, finding myself so
desolate…I sat down and wept.”24
The reader cannot help but feel sympathy for the creature, with his heartfelt admissions.
Frankenstein’s reliability is also questioned with this revelation of the creatures’.
Lochhead, “What the Creature Said”
Dear, Scene 4 p6.
24
Shelley, p80.
22
23
8
Apart from his initial and short lived appearance in the introduction of the novel, we have
seen very little of the creature and heard only the tales of misery from Victor. It is not
surprising that we are shocked when we finally meet the creature; his eloquence and presence
are not that of a hapless murderer, but of an unjust and unfortunate soul who has fallen prey
to his circumstance. This is unquestionably a turning point in the novel, where the reader’s
view of the creature shifts to a position of uncertainty: do we believe the noble Frankenstein
who we have come to trust, but who is capable of creating and abandoning such a helpless
creature? Or this creature, who we have known so little about- but seems so rational and
victimised through no fault of his own. We are left with this to consider as we look at the
drama, in which the Creature’s meeting with Victor is portrayed in a completely different
way. Paradoxically, this other portrayal allows us insight into Victor’s perspective and gives
us a little understanding from his point of view. Whereas in Shelley’s “Frankenstein” the
creature and Victor’s meeting is a soliloquy for the Creature, the speech in the play is far
more broken and disjointed, however, we still get a sense of the creature’s unjust upbringing:
“You ran away…You abandoned me…[You] Built a man, and g[a]ve him life –”25
(Scene 24 Frankenstein N.D) The Creatures’ frustration is clear and we can sympathise with
his plea. Kenneth Branagh’s interpretation of the novel “Frankenstein” highlights the
injustice particularly well, with his creature’s speech measured and calm as he accuses
Victor:
“Did you ever consider the consequences of your actions?
You gave me life, and then left me to die. Who am I?”26
This question seems to be a common thread throughout every interpretation of the text, and it
is arguable what the true answer is, or if one is even definable.
The answer to this question is found independently in each text. Lochhead offers a direct
answer in Smirnoff for Karloff and describes the Creatures as; “[his] Big Fat Little Secret”27
but this description in itself raises more questions – is “[his]” referring to Victor
Frankenstein? If we assume that it is, then we have to consider who Victor is and how this
relates to “his” creation. The wording of “Big Fat Little Secret” is an interesting paradox
which has the effect of creating a satirical tone. The contrast of “Big fat little”, compares the
25
Dear, Scene 24 pp37-38.
Branagh Kenneth, Director, Frankenstein, 1994
27
Lochhead, “Smirnoff for Karloff”
26
9
physical size of the creature who, although he has the stature of an eight foot man, is
comparatively small to the enormity of the secret he represents – for in reality, the creature is
the physical manifestation of the wonders of the human capabilities and Science combined.
The interpretation gives the identity of the creature as: “Victor’s secret”. However, the poetry
also offers an alternative identity for the creature; one which can be found in elements of the
other texts. The suggestion is that the creature is Victor’s child, which is represented in An
Abortion; “[The creature that] has come out of her and she is responsible for.”28 The
presentation of the mother and calf as a metaphorical representation of Victor and his creature
only serves to reinforce how their relationship does not conform to the accepted image. The
typical mother/child relationship which is relayed in the poem depicts the mother mourning
the loss of her calf after its tragic death during the birth. Not only does Victor not “mourn”
the loss of his creation; he actively turns his back on it, abandoning all responsibility and
compassion and this is most evident in Shelley’s prose. The gentle motion with which the
mother tends to her calf: “licking…tenderly”29 connotes the passion and love held in the
bond. In comparison; Dear’s Frankenstein highlights the sense of ownership, which is not
through mutual agreement yet the creature can still claim some sense of an identity as
Victor’s creation. It is interesting that it is written as “Victor’s creation”, as the possession is
made clear. Victor directs the creature: “Do as I say!”30 Yet, almost as soon as they meet,
Victor abandons this sense of responsibility: “Victor is gone.”31 Considering that this is the
first time the audience have seen Victor, we are surprised at his inarticulation and state of
panic – especially in comparison with the fluent and measured tone of Shelley’s
Frankenstein. The audience consider this image: that the creature is the child of Victor (as
with the cow and the calf) yet, the representation does not seem to fit this stereotype – and we
can conclude that this is simply because the relationship is not natural.
Through-out all three interpretations of the text, the importance of setting is highlighted,
especially in the last scene where Frankenstein and his creature face a relentless quest to
outrun the other. This scene is particularly interesting as it demonstrates the inability of either
to survive without the other and cements the idea that they are one and the same. Despite this,
each text offers a unique perspective, however, the underlying message is the same. Shelley's
Frankenstein conveys the determination and frenzied compulsion with which Frankenstein
Lochhead, “An Abortion”
Lochhead “An Abortion”
30
Dear, Scene 3 p5.
31
Dear, Scene 3 p5.
28
29
10
follows his creature. This view point allows the reader to sympathise with Frankenstein,
especially when he acknowledges his own hopelessness:
"I must commence a destructive and almost endless journey across the
mountainous ices of the ocean….which I….could not hope to survive." 32
This bitter relentlessness is continued through Frankenstein’s last letter and his death is a
mere blip in his determination to seek out and destroy his creature, he vows to "Hover near
and direct the steel aright"33 By removing the characters from any form of humanity or
civilisation and placing them in a barren and unforgiving landscape, Shelley has reduced
them to their very purest forms. Alone and vulnerable, she reveals the similarities of the two,
while weak in body - Frankenstein demonstrates the same strength of mind as the creature as
both are reduced to, ultimately, a relentless game of Cat and Mouse. Yet, here the question is
raised - who is chasing who? Although it may seem as though it is Victor who is in pursuit,
Dear demonstrates an alternative view. Here, the staging is particularly significant. The stage
is bare with minimal lighting and the backdrop that of a "Polar ice-cap, inside the Arctic
Circle…[with] a blizzard howl[ing]”34 however, our interest is instead drawn to the middle
of the stage, where Frankenstein and his creature continue their quest. The Creature taunts the
weak and dying Victor with a childish glee and addresses the audience:
"The son becomes the father, the master the slave. I have led him
across the Black Sea, through Tartary and Russia. I have led him
past Archangel, and out on to the ice. We go north, always north…
We have a compact we must keep: he lives for my destruction, I live
to lead him on."35
But when Victor does not respond and lies motionless on the floor, the Creature is helpless.
Lost and desolate he pleads with Victor to live, while contradicting his previous claims of
having become "the father" and reverting back to the struggling helplessness of "the son", he
cradles his master and with a sorrowful and heartfelt display of raw emotion, questions him:
"While you live, I Iive. When you are gone, I must go too. Master, what
is death? What will it feel like? Can I die…All I wanted was your love.
32
Shelley, p157.
Shelley, p159.
34
Dear, Scene 30 p74.
35
Dear, Scene 30 p75.
33
11
I would have loved you with all of my heart. My poor creator."36
While Victor struggles to carry on and follow the creature, our attention is brought to the
stage. A revolving section continues to rotate as Victor drags his broken body after the
creature. As the curtains come down, the audience are left with this image of man and beast,
relentlessly trudging through the snow, indistinguishable from each other and ultimately one
and the same.
Victor has played “God”, removed the femininity from the process of creation and replaced it
with a very physical, masculine presence. The creature is created with his bare hands, quite
literally and this is particularly evident in Shelley’s Frankenstein:
“A dæmon whom I had myself created.”37
And this once again leaves us questioning, not only the true identity of the creature, but also
that of Frankenstein. It is only at this point where we are aware, that the creature cannot have
a true identity – he is a product of Frankenstein, and for the creature to have an identity
Frankenstein must also. But Frankenstein is now aware of who truly is, and is scared to
discover his true self, so remains oblivious. We can see how each text offers a different
viewpoint of the text; leaving us with contrasting values at the end of each. By telling the
story from different perspectives and viewpoints, we are made aware of every characters’
experiences and values.
36
37
Dear, Scene 30 p76.
Shelley, p129.
12
REFERENCES
Primary Texts:
Dear, Nick, Frankenstein, London (2011), Faber and Faber Ltd
Lochhead, Liz, “An Abortion”, Dreaming Frankenstein and Collected Poems 1967-1984,
Edinburgh (2003), Polygon Books
Lochhead, Liz, “Dreaming Frankenstein”, Dreaming Frankenstein and Collected Poems
1967-1984, Edinburgh (2003), Polygon Books
Lochhead, Liz, “Smirnoff for Karloff”, Dreaming Frankenstein and Collected Poems 19671984, Edinburgh (2003), Polygon Books
Lochhead, Liz, “What the Creature Said”, Dreaming Frankenstein and Collected Poems
1967-1984, Edinburgh (2003), Polygon Books
Shelley, Mary, Frankenstein, Hertfordshire (1993), Wordsworth Editions Limited
Secondary Texts:
Branagh, Kenneth, Director, Frankenstein, (1994), Columbia Tristar
Unknown Author, English Literature, (2009)
URL:http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english_literature/prosefrankenstein/0prose_
frankenstein_contrev1.shtml
Visited (September 2012)
13