"Empathising with a Monster" - A study of the way people’s reactions towards Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein have changed throughout the years

Mary Shelley is largely attributed to being the initiator of the science fiction genre. Not only have her writings been revolutionary in the 19^th century, but, ever since, these stories have also inspired writers and, later on, filmmakers, to recreate or reinterpret the themes and motifs present in Shelley’s novels. Moreover, the romantic-gothic Frankenstein determined the public to acknowledge Shelley as a great impetus for the rise of the gothic genre, alongside Edgar Allan Poe, Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson and others. Apart from the gothic atmosphere which Mary Shelley created in Frankenstein, many romantic influences can be observed as well. Since one of the key features that we recognise in romantic writings is the focus on a complex and often contradictory emotional life, there is no surprise in finding out that Frankenstein succeeded in awakening deep feelings in its readers. However, Mary Shelley’s intentions regarding her novel are, unfortunately, unknown to us, and it isn’t certain whether Frankenstein was supposed to simply generate horror, or send a subliminal message about morality. Therefore, one of the questionable matters still relevant nowadays is whether the public should empathise with the monster or despise him. Filmmakers have played an important role in influencing people’s perception towards the image of the monster, as they have reinterpreted the storyline in various ways and the public has responded to these changes. Consequently, the present response to Frankenstein is tremendously different from the initial reaction that the public had when the novel was firstly published. In order to understand Frankenstein's evolution, we have to take the following aspects into consideration: the initial response to the 18^th-century novel, the first movie and theatre adaptations and the public’s reaction to them, the evolution of empathy, modern reinterpretations of the story and how they changed the public view of the monster.

First of all, the “tale within a tale” structure of Mary Shelley’s novel allows the readers to hear both Frankenstein and his creation tell their story, which was highly influential on their opinions regarding the characters. The public sees Victor in his pursuit of scientific knowledge, acting like “the modern Prometheus”, and desiring a power destined only for the Gods: the power to create life. Even though he eventually succeeds, he is disappointed by the monstrous physical features his creature possesses and abandons it. The reader then finds out that, after parting from Frankenstein, the creature observed humans from a distance and learned from them. Therefore, he is capable of telling his story eloquently and expressing his feelings rationally. However, this impression contradicts the creature’s violent tendencies that come to light later. This caused some confusion not only among the readers, but also among the first critics who aimed to discuss Shelley’s novel. They were accustomed to predictable storylines and easily-labelled characters, which is what determined Frankenstein to be considered a difficult read at first.

 One of the first reactions to the novel was an article written by Walter Scott in March 1818, after the first version of Frankenstein had been published. He begins by describing the novel’s nature as peculiar, which is why he considers placing it in a specific category to be essential. Consequently, he proceeds to define it as a “romantic fiction” which uses the supernatural in defying the laws of nature. Then, regarding the creature’s nature, Walter states that “the monster (…) becomes ferocious and malignant, in consequence of finding all his approaches to human society repelled with injurious violence and offensive marks of disgust”¹. Therefore, it is clear that he doesn’t consider the creature evil in nature, yet he still calls it “a monster” and doesn’t empathise with him. However, Scott appreciates the creativity and the quality of the writing, saying that “the work impresses us with a high idea of the author's original genius and happy power of expression”².

On the other hand, the same year, John Wilson Crocker expresses a very different opinion in his article from Quarterly Review. He regards Frankenstein as nothing more nor less than a horror story, using a Shakespearian quote to say that Shelley’s novel is “a tale / Told by an ideot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing—"³. From his point of view, Frankenstein “inculcates no lesson of conduct, manners, or morality”⁴, it does nothing but “make the flesh creep”⁵. This proves that there also were negative responses to Shelley’s novel, as a part of the public didn’t resonate with Frankenstein’s tragic story or empathise with the characters.

However, in 1832, Percy Bysshe Shelley publishes an article on Frankenstein in The Athenæum, where he explains why he thinks that not everyone can comprehend and sympathise with the emotions that the characters are experiencing throughout the story. He states that “those who are accustomed to reason deeply on their origin and tendency will, perhaps, be the only persons who can sympathize, to the full extent”⁶. He then proceeds to discuss the creature’s nature, saying that he wasn’t born evil, but “the circumstances of his existence are so monstrous and uncommon”⁷ that he only encounters hatred and fear during his interactions with others. Therefore, “his original goodness was gradually turned into inextinguishable misanthropy and revenge”⁸. He then mentions the dialogue between the creature and the blind man, in the cottage, to illustrate how a brilliantly-written scene can awaken powerful emotions in the readers, determining them to empathise with a being which they initially considered a monster. 

The later adaptations of the book have come up with their own interpretations of the story, more or less far away from the original. In fact, there are more than ninety Frankenstein adaptations and neither of them is completely faithful to Mary Shelley’s novel. However, many of them were incredibly successful and had a tremendous influence on the way people perceive the story and the characters. Harold Bloom considers that these are to blame for when it comes to the general perception of the creature as a monster (“a creature, a New Adam, whom most of us now call the monster, because we have seen so many motion picture versions of Frankenstein”⁹). The first adaptation of the book proves his point perfectly, as its main purpose was to create a frightening experience. Richard Brinsley Peake presented a theatre play in 1823, called Presumption: or the Fate of Frankenstein, at the English Opera House, in London. Richard Holmes, in his article Science fiction: The science that fed Frankenstein says that even Mary Shelley attended the play and stated that “in the early performances all the ladies fainted and hubbub ensued!”¹⁰. Moreover, less than a month after this first representation, the Royal Court Theatre in London produced another play, called Frankenstein, or The Demon of Switzerland, instead of The Modern Prometheus. The change of titles sheds light upon the monstrosity of the creature and also warns the public about the fact that Frankenstein is a horror story.

Then, filmmakers made use of Frankenstein’s potential in creating films that would become an essential part of the horror genre. The first movie adaptation was created by Edison Productions in 1910, it was only twelve minutes long and it made use of ominous music in order to create a frightening atmosphere. However, not only did the short film fail to capture the deep meanings in the novel, but it also changed the ending. This movie concentrates on Frankenstein’s story and ends with him marrying Elizabeth. The creature’s side of the story is not presented, being considered irrelevant, as he was nothing but a villain created to frighten the audience. The second film, from 1931, attempted to be even more terrifying than the previous one, by accentuating the evil nature of the creature to such an extent that it made the public’s hair stand on end. The monster, played by Boris Karloff, is neither able to express himself rationally, nor to prove his intelligence, as in Shelley’s novel. Another adaptation from 1957, called The Curse of Frankenstein, directed by Terence Fisher, was even more distant from the original. The monster does not have a normal evolution, as he is portrayed as an aggressive murderer, from the moment he is created. What this proves is that the movie focuses more on adapting to the horror genre than on being faithful to the novel. The characters are neither thoughtfully constructed, nor meant to show a complex personality, as their only aim is to offer the horror-movie fans a good scare.

(Boris Karloff as Frankenstein in the 1931 adaptation)

Therefore, it is obvious that the first Frankenstein movies were more classic horror movies that actual adaptations of Mary Shelley’s novel. They chose to label the creature as naturally evil, without taking his perspective into the account or giving him the chance to tell his story, as Mary Shelley does. However, the fact that the novel allows readers to see the creature intelligently express himself is highly relevant to the final message of the story. This is why Richard Holmes thinks that none of those movies will ever be greater than the novel. He discusses this in his article Science fiction: The science that fed Frankenstein, saying that “(…) the Creature becomes even more expressive and human than Frankenstein. He produces arias of speech, begging for justice, understanding, compassion and human rights”¹¹. He then brings up the scene when the creature reminds Frankenstein of his responsibilities as an example to sustain his statement. He considers that filmmakers are forgetting about the main theme of the novel – responsibility, which is relevant even nowadays, as it stresses the “moral choices and unforeseen ethical responsibilities that may come with scientific advances: artificial intelligence or artificial life, nuclear power or nuclear weaponry, the genome sequence or invasive genetic editing”¹².

However, since humanity is continuously evolving, the public’s response to emotions has changed over the years. In the book “The Better Angels of Our Nature”, Steven Pinker aims to convince the public that, despite a certain misbelief, people are much more peaceful and empathic nowadays than they were in the past. He says that, after the two World Wars, there has been “a growing revulsion against aggression on smaller scales, including violence against ethnic minorities, women, children, homosexuals, and animals”¹³. That being taken into consideration, there is no wonder people began to realise that the creature in Frankenstein had always been misjudged. Therefore, at the end of the 20^th century, filmmakers have started to create Frankenstein-like characters, portraying the unfortunate life of an abandoned child. They shed light upon his thoughts, his feelings and his struggles, as the other earlier adaptations failed to do so. Moreover, they introduced new elements into the story, in order to illustrate the evolution of technology and adapt to contemporary society. For instance, Tim Burton’s Edward Scissorhands (1990), which has been visibly influenced by Shelley’s novel, portrays the struggles of an abandoned boy with scissors instead of hands. Similar to the creature in Frankenstein, Edward appears to be a rational, kind-hearted, but lonely person, who is misjudged by the shallow society because of his rough exterior. Even though he doesn’t behave badly, like the original character eventually does, Burton’s “monster” still ends up alone, isolating himself from a world to which he doesn’t belong. The movie represents the starting point for a general fascination of the public for bizarre, unordinary characters.


(Johnny Depp in Edward Scissorhands,1990)

 Another reinterpretation of Frankenstein’s story takes a step forward, by creating a robot as the main character, in order to raise awareness of the possible consequences of creating artificial intelligence. Ex-Machina (2014) illustrates a female robot version of Frankenstein’s monster. Similar to the original character, she represents nothing but a daring project for her creator, who then abandons her. Further on, after acquiring knowledge from humans, she starts questioning her identity and her purpose, as Frankenstein’s creature does. However, the main difference between this Sci-Fi movie and the novel is the fact that the robot adapts to the world and acquires human rights. Therefore, the creature becomes the hero, whom the public supports, and the creator – the villain.


(Alicia Vikander in Ex Machina, 2014)

This role reversal between good and evil is typical for the beginning of the 21^st century. Many characters who were initially considered villains are now analysed and redefined in order to attract positive response. Such is the case of Frankenstein’s creature, who was at first presented as a horror movie monster. Later on, filmmakers have learnt to make use of such a complex character, allowing the audience to have a better understanding of his perception and his personality. As a result, not only did people empathise with him, they also seemed to identify with his situation: being neglected, alone and unable to adapt.

To sum up, it is obvious that a complex narrative such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein allows people to express various opinions on it and to reinterpret the story in many ways. Even though, at first, it was only appreciated as a horror story, later on, the morality issues in Frankenstein became the main aspect people focused on. Therefore, the public began to question Frankenstein’s morality, the creature’s nature and the consequences of creating life. Furthermore, since the public capacity for empathy has developed, people have started to approach Frankenstein’s creature differently, showing more consideration for his emotions, which proves that the social, political and historical changes in the world have had a huge impact on the way people perceive literature.

References:

¹ Scott, W.: article published in the Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine 2, March 1818, 613-620, https://romantic-circles.org/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/bemrev.html;

² Scott, W.: article published in the Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine 2, March 1818, 613-620, https://romantic-circles.org/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/bemrev.html ;

³ Shakespeare, W.: Macbeth, Oxford University Press, edited by Roma Gill, OBE, M.A. Cantab., B. Litt. Oxon, 2004, act 5, scene 5, lines 25-27;

⁴ Crocker, J. W.: article published in the Quarterly Review 18 on June 12, 1818, 379-385, https://romantic-circles.org/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/qrrev.html;

⁵ Crocker, J. W.: article published in the Quarterly Review 18 on June 12, 1818, 379-385, https://romantic-circles.org/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/qrrev.html;

⁶ Shelley, P. B.: article written in 1817, published in The Athenaeum Journal of Literature, Science and the Fine Arts, Nov. 10, 1832, p. 730, https://romantic-circles.org/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/londonlit;

⁷ Shelley, P. B.: article written in 1817, published in The Athenaeum Journal of Literature, Science and the Fine Arts, Nov. 10, 1832, p. 730, https://romantic-circles.org/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/londonlit;

⁸ Shelley, P. B.: article written in 1817, published in The Athenaeum Journal of Literature, Science and the Fine Arts, Nov. 10, 1832, p. 730, https://romantic-circles.org/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/londonlit;

⁹ Bloom, H.: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Infobase Publishing, edited & with an introduction by Harold Bloom, 2007, p. 7;

¹⁰ Holmes, R.: Science fiction: The science that fed Frankenstein, Nature 535, 490–491, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1038/535490a;

¹¹ Holmes, R.: Science fiction: The science that fed Frankenstein, Nature 535, 490–491, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1038/535490a;

¹² Holmes, R.: Science fiction: The science that fed Frankenstein, Nature 535, 490–491, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1038/535490a;

¹³ Pinker, S.: The Better Angels of Our Nature, New York, NY: Viking, 2011;