Oh My God. Og My God. The Symbolism Of It All

I’ve seen this comment a few times on my art here and on insta and I’m genuinely curious— WHERE did people get the idea that the Creature “just had creepy eyes”?? That Victor only ran away because the Creature’s eyes freaked him out?

I’ve seen people say this repeatedly and it couldn’t be further from the truth like. He is explicitly described as an eight foot tall cobbled together corpse with skin that barely covers his veins, yes his eyes are creepy but that would probably be the last thing anyone would notice about the Creature tbh 😭

Hey. Don't cry. Weird teenage girl somewhere out there reading Frankenstein for the first time. Ok?

i have many many thoughts about the portrayal of elizabeth (and henry) in adaptations of frankenstein and they need to be broadcasted immediately. feverish incoherent raving about this subject under the cut. tw for very brief mention of SA

so. elizabeth lavenza. by the time of the wedding, elizabeth is rather obviously portrayed to be just as morose and brooding as victor is, she just isn't as susceptible to episodes of mania and psychosis so it doesn't seem nearly as dramatic compared to victor's trauma. she's been through the gutter herself, being an orphan for starters, then being adopted into a family and having to assume the role of caregiver in the frankenstein family because of the coercion of her dead mother to not only take her place as the maternal figure in the family but also marry her surrogate brother (or literal cousin, depending on which version you read). then her surrogate younger brother william dies, and the within weeks she has to watch her closest heterosexual life partner justine be unjustly hung by a corrupt justice system. and she vocalizes, actively, her pessimism and hopelessness in light of these many tragedies. tldr she's fucked up and rightfully so, and while she's a little less crippled by depression than victor, she still has the distinct appearance of being rather ill, listless, and tired, especially towards the end of the novel. anyways my point is in the novel, the most important thing about elizabeth is not that she's a woman and victor's bride. yes, that's obviously the purpose she was created for, but shelley went out of her way to give elizabeth an extremely definite and unique character. she's gentle and maternal like most woman in early 19th century literature, but she's also introspective, intelligent, and perceptive. she displays agency and self-awareness repeatedly (her guilt over the locket, going to the execution of justine even when alphonse tells her not to, waxing poetic on the failures of the justice system, asking repeatedly and rather pointedly if victor actually wants to go through with the marriage, obvious anxiety and solemnity concerning the wedding) we also have to take into account that elizabeth's personality is being relayed to us BY VICTOR, and he wants to see elizabeth as docile and femininely passive, even if a lot of her actions themselves in the novel actually seem to contradict that. also, i am peppering in that many people can (and have) made a genuine and convincing argument that victor and elizabeth are not in love and were groomed to accept their union by their weirdo parents - that they care for each other, but the text includes important nuances that make it evident that victor doesn't feel anything for elizabeth like that. it is a legitimate interpretation of the book - dare i say it's the correct interpretation of the relationship between victor and elizabeth. but that's another essay for another day and it's not SUPER integral to my rant here today. it just highlights the complexity of elizabeth as a character.

so. for some fucking reason, writers do not understand this when they are adapting the novel, and do not want to apply more than eight seconds of critical thinking and the absolute shallowest 3rd grader levels of reading comprehension to this character, so they simplify her from what she was in the original novel, freshly complex, opinionated, and introspective to boring useless incest lady. victor is never portrayed with the same amount of nuance he deserves in any adaptation (also another essay for another day), because adaptations also have a very surface level reading of him as "guy who was ambitious and played god which immediately cements him as an irredeemable self-aggrandizing asshole and/or a raging insufferable narcissist who's a dick to everyone around him EXCEPT for elizabeth" but at least SOME adaptations are able to kiiinnnddaaaa capture the sympathy meant to be felt for the character in the novel. not so for elizabeth. her character in basically every adaptation can be boiled down to this: "omg victor my brother let me hammer in that you are my brother. im just going to stand here and look clueless and annoyingly naive for the entire novel. im just a little girl and idk what's going on victor but im gonna stay blindly devoted to you and ask numerous but completely useless questions 🥺 let me stare at you with tender worry in my eyes and treat you like a child even though we have absolutely no romantic chemistry and you're an objectifying dick towards me and we have nothing in common and the audience is actively dry heaving as we sensually make out for no other reason than to have characters in this movie sensually make out. im basically a carbon copy of original-novel-henry expect super boring and super useless because im a woman which means the doylist explanation for why im here HAS TO BE ONLY for the main character to fuck me and to hold the attention of the male viewership. now time for me to get SA'd by the creechur for basically no reason" we can observe something approximating this in basically every frankenstein adaptation i've ever seen: kenneth branagh's (my enemy) 1994 film, the 2004 hallmark miniseries, the musical, and the ballet. also in the 1931 film, but that one isn't really trying to be book-accurate so it doesn't really count for this rant.

with this understanding of elizabeth, writers then attempt to artificially generate more romance between these characters, mostly by, yes, replacing a lot of henry's role in the novel with elizabeth, hence why we see so many adaptations (1994, 2004, ballet) make elizabeth nurse victor back to health in ingolstadt instead of henry, which generates... so many problems. one problem with this is that it just sorta ruins henry's original role in the novel in one go. writers recognize that henry is supposed to be victor's character foil, but now they don't have much for him to do since they gave all of the romantic tension moments to elizabeth. meaning that in adaptations you can tell the writers didn't really know what to do with henry because he's reduced to a comic relief bumbling idiot (1994, ballet, 2004 to an extent) with his only personality traits being "random xd" and "morals good playing god wrong!!!! 😠" (2004, musical, several independent stage adaptations). they keep him as a character foil, but just replace all of his compassion, tenderness, and devotion with elizabeth, while effectively draining henry of all of his original appeal and charm and stamping those traits onto their already stripped-of-all-nuance elizabeth. so now both henry and elizabeth are not only extremely different from their original roles in the novel but extremely, woefully less charming and complex. this especially pisses me off because it's explicitly stated in the book that henry was victor's only friend precisely because he was victor's intellectual equal, so seeing henry reduced to a smiley idiot and/or stupid generic male side character with Morals fills me with a visceral rage. writers will also sometimes make victor and henry meet in college (ballet, 1994) and try to strengthen the bond between victor and elizabeth by making it appear as though she was victor's ONLY childhood friend and companion. other times, victor and henry will be friends pre-ingolstadt (2004, musical) but most of the relationship development will be between elizabeth and victor. those two have all of the tender bonding moments while henry is just kinda inexplicably there sometimes. but i digress. this post is supposed to be about elizabeth. but IF YOU NEED A CHARACTER TO BE A SUNSHINE SOFT OPTIMISTIC LOVER FOR VICTOR IN A FRANKENSTEIN ADAPTATION, HENRY IS ABLE AND WILLING ARE YOU STEPPING ON MY BALLS

clervalstein is true. anyway

elizabeth is somehow more complex and powerful as a female character than the literal adaptations produced almost 200 years later. in adaptations, the most important thing about her is somebody else. the development of all of her character traits (which usually never go beyond standing around and looking helpless) are solely dependant on victor. she feels more like an appendage of the protagonist than an individual with thoughts and experiences separate from victor, and her character is loosely defined and flimsy so the writers can have her conform to her actions in the book whenever it's convenient and then change things up entirely that completely contradict her characterization in the book whenever it's convenient. i have no idea why the fuck this keeps happening with frankenstein adaptations (it's misogyny) and because it isn't looking like guillermo del toro's film (from what ive heard) is going to be super book accurate, i dont foresee too much of a shift in frankenstein adaptations.

look i get it. it's a movie/play/ballet which lasts like 2 hours and you have a lot to do and not a lot of time to do it. i understand you have to make sacrifices for brevity and these characters are, frankly, a lot less interesting and exciting than victor and creechur. people didn't come to see john hughes levels of charm and complexity in the side characters, they came to watch the creechur do scary shit and for victor to say IT'S ALIVE 😱 and be an evil mad scientist you love to hate. they came for their values of "it's wrong to play god!!!" and "too much ambition bad!!!" to be re-cemented even though that's not even the original point of the novel. which is why imo if you're going to adapt frankenstein in a manner that does justice to the beautiful and sublime subtlety of the original novel, it needs to be either a miniseries or a REALLY LONG film. it's a short book, but it's very eventful, and imo for an adaptation to work you have to let the audience sit with it. which is why you all need to donate to my gofundme so i can produce an honest to god frankenstein adaptation. in fact, im running for president in this year's primaries :3

just a disclaimer: im not an academic or a scholar or anything. i just like the book. i probably have no idea what the fuck im talking about. but im a very very passionate little guy and this has been my rant

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 

historically, canes (walking sticks) were used both as an aid for mobility and balance, and as a reflection of status. this shift towards becoming a status symbol started during the renaissance, when canes began to be elaboratively carved and designed. there was also "the golden age of canes" during the 1800s, when canes became both a functional tool and versatile accessories, including concealed gadgets, weapons, and other mechanical features. things like crutches and other supports tended to be less ornate (source).

for example of some canes -- here's a cane from 1760, and here's another cane from the late 18th century!

in general, medical treatises are also a good place to look for information regarding disability aids. for example, sir benjamin collins brodie, a london surgeon, investigated joint disease and discusses mobility aids in his observations on the diseases of the joints:

“The careful employment of a walking stick or crutch can aid in maintaining activity while shielding the diseased joint from undue pressure, thus balancing rest with essential movement"

"Supportive aids such as canes or crutches... ease the transition from immobility to gradual weight-bearing, thereby ensuring that the delicate tissues of the joint are not overstrained during convalescence"

i thought this and this were interesting sources as well, especially the latter -- while they only touch on walking sticks used as a mobility aid, it's a good look into the history and significance of walking sticks. i've also requested the full text of an article discussing the history of wheelchairs; i'll get back to you if the author chooses to send it!

i hope this helps!

does anyone have any resources on late 1700s/Early 1800s canes or physical disability aids?

the similarities between peter, ender and even valentine though– they’re all so clearly products of the same dysfunctional household.

Keep reading

experimenting with shape language lately, I think I'm getting better at it -not final-

What do you think of Robert Walton? I love that silly sailor very dearly and in one of your post you said that he was a little like Percy Shelley and I'm really curious to know why that is :]

i can't believe i've never shared my waltonthoughts before!!! in short

to be honest for a pretty large majority of my frankenstein fandom time i've been fairly apathetic about walton? (sorry robin 😞) i felt really really bad because i couldn't quite pinpoint why; he's an intriguing character with some really interesting stuff going on, his narration is charming and incredibly complex but i just i don't know. he didn't arouse my curiosity and desire to analyze like the other characters did (i admit my frankenstein rereads i kinda. skip the letters at the beginning. i know i am so sorry). it might be that he's quite far removed from the themes in frankenstein that really intrigue me like mental illness, neurodivergency, and generational trauma so nothing abt him stuck out to me

but!!! i am no longer apathetic about him! i thought it would feel like a chore to go through his letters with a fine toothed comb but walton represents what i think is a really underrepresented dichotomy: he's very industrious and self-efficacious, kinda like one of those self made millionaire crypto bros, with a privileged station and promising, comfortable future, but he has this wanderlust for life and beauty and romance that he cant really reconcile with his and it causes him a lot of distress and loneliness. when he meets victor he thinks he finds someone that can satisfy this longing for the romantic and sublime, someone attractive, intelligent, engaging, and ostensibly an avatar of the tragic romantic figure - walton thinks that this is the only proxy by which he can be understood and further understand himself, the only adequate vessel for this longing, which is probably why he attaches onto victor so obsessively. victor is tragic, beautiful, pitiful, complex, fallen from grace, and because of his idealism and thirst for a romantic story walton thinks he can save them both. especially because they knew each other for a relatively short period of time, i don't know to what extent walton loves victor or just loves the narrative of loving victor. in the idiot by dostoevsky prince myshkin says of natasya filippovna "i love her not with love, but with pity" and i think that might be what's going on with walton and victor. i need to spend more time thinking about that though

on the subject of him being like percy the major similarity i noticed is that walton, being an orphan, was raised by his older sister, and ive seen some people attribute his emotional and "effeminate" nature to his being raised under her "gentle and feminine fosterage"; similarly, percy shelley was very close to his mother and sisters in his youth, and ive seen a couple scholars attribute his sentimentality of character and feminist-adjacent ideas (like free love) to his being close to female figures in his childhood and young adulthood. probably a stretch but i just think it's kinda interesting. the two also share some other similarities like being poets in profession (or at least trying to be 😭) and veneration for nature

i think i had more to say but my brain power is depleted 😭 im so so so sorry it took me so long to get around to this ask!!! i had to do a little rereading and critical thinking which is yucky

I want to preface this with that it is all in friendly debate, for the sake of media analysis, and I don’t mean to come off too strong or as if I am upset/angry - I’m just passionate !!

Why can you sympathize with the Creature, literal murderer 3x over, but not Victor, who had realistic (and at times reasonable) reactions given the circumstances? Do Victor’s very genuine and understandable pains and sufferings condemn the Creature as well, then? Why can we apply this logic to the Creature but not to Victor? And do Victor’s pain and sufferings both pre-Ingolstadt (weird and wacky childhood, excessive expectations from family, mother dying) and post Ingolstadt (grieving the recent loss of his mother, a big life change that he necessarily didn’t want [college in foreign area], severe mental and physical illness) not explain HIS actions and make him more sympathetic?

“He spent months looking at his creation, why the sudden reaction, when he succeeded at bring him to life?” Looking at a still corpse on a table is much different then looking at an Alive, Moving corpse. 

Also, he wanted or considered stopping several times but was so out of it and had severe obsessive compulsions that kept him from eating and sleeping. He could not, in his own mind, have easily stopped at any time nor was of sound enough mind to realize the extent of what he was doing. And Victor just generally lacks foresight and what is obvious to the reader (that you should prepare to take care of your reanimated corpse) was not obvious to Victor at the time. He didn’t know or consider, nor was he in the right state of mind to know or consider, that the Creature was going to rely on him.

He didn’t suddenly up and flee from a lack of backbone. Victor was sick, manic, hallucinating and dying and had been for MONTHS. He’d been sticking his unwashed, grubby hands in gore pre-germ theory, for, like, two years by now. He didn’t just see the Creature’s spooky eyes and scream and run away. It was so bad he literally didn’t have the strength to hold a pen for months afterwards, writing a letter took everything out of him.

Also - why are we condemning Victor for having a sudden and strong reaction (fleeing the scene and leaving Creature) but not the Creature (being rejected by DeLaceys, burning their house down and going off on a murder spree)?

Yes, Vic made Creature and he was therefore responsible for him, but it would have been bad for Creature and Victor both for Vic to be solely responsible and care for Creature. Even if Victor was physically well enough to care for a newborn (he wasn’t) he was NOT mentally well enough or in the right mind to care for another being, and that would have been damaging for the both of them. It was better for them to be separated for the good of both Vic and Creech. 

Now, Creature shouldn’t have been abandoned, but in the best case scenario someone should have intervened and/or Victor asks someone for help (Henry), but even Henry and Victor alone couldn’t have cared for Creature properly. They’re two teenagers in college classes. Henry spent all his free time nursing Victor back to health from the brink of death after a mental health crisis. They would have had to get outside help - and who would have helped them with their corpse experiment? There was no chance of a stable upbringing for the First Reanimated Corpse no matter the outcome or choices made.  

I don’t think Victor had ‘several opportunities to interfere in the Creature’s life and do the right thing.’ They only met face-to-face about three times: notably, when the Creature first woke, their confrontation in the alps, and while Victor was creating the bride. The first time Victor was deathly sick, feverish and hallucinating that the Creature wanted to kill him. The second time was after Creature killed William, and Victor was actually very charitable for the circumstances IMO. I don’t blame him for starting off swinging - I’d do the same if I thought someone else killed my little brother. And, AFTER the murder of his little brother, Victor still wound up agreeing to make the Creature a wife, even if he went back on the deal. I’ll elaborate more on the Bride later.

You say Creature showed remorse but that Victor failed to feel remorse or compassion entirely, only self-pity. I disagree. Victor was canonically so moved (he literally admits to being moved) by the Creature’s story to the extent that he went from trying to pummel him to agreeing to make him a wife (the creation of which nearly killed him in the past). This is all AFTER Victor believes the Creature killed William. Let’s look at a few quotes during their confrontation in the alps:

“For the first time, also, I felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness. These motives urged me to comply with his demand”

“His words had a strange effect upon me. I compassionated him, and sometimes felt a wish to console him; but when I looked upon him, when I saw the filthy mass that moved and talked, my heart sickened, and my feelings were altered to those of horror and hatred. I tried to stifle these sensations; I thought that, as I could not sympathise with him, I had no right to withhold from him the small portion of happiness which was yet in my power to bestow.”

“I was moved. I shuddered when I thought of the possible consequences of my consent; but I felt that there was some justice in his argument. His tale, and the feelings he now expressed, proved him to be a creature of fine sensations; and did I not as his maker owe him all the portion of happiness that it was in my power to bestow?”

Victor both takes accountability here (owns up to his duties as creator to owe him the happiness he had the power to bestow) and feels compassion towards him, he tries to wrangle down his own horror and hatred to at least hear the Creature out fairly.

“The only thing he felt was self-pity. Even his attempts at killing the Creature weren’t really motivated by responsibility and stopping the killings. It was pure self-indulgent revenge.” Revenge for… killing his family members, right? Wasn’t his motivation to stop the murders of his family (or at least avenge them), then?

I think it’s an unfair expectation in the first place for Victor to make the Creature a bride. The toll it took on Victor’s physical and mental health nearly killed him the first time around, and left him bedridden with fever, chronically ill, hallucinatory, and traumatized. That’s enough reason to not do it alone, on top of Victor being frightened of two creatures existing. Is Victor supposed to go through that again? Your proposition for Victor to stop the killings (something the Creature, uh, shouldn’t be doing in the first place and can stop anytime LOL) is for Victor to what - risk killing himself? And even if Victor’s reasoning for destroying the Bride were wholly rooted in hate, pride, cowardice and selfishness -  what of the Bride’s autonomy? She’s just supposed to wake up and live as Creature’s ready-to-go-GF and be perfectly happy?

The Creature already knew right from wrong without Victor’s influence by the time he killed William. While yes, he was only ever met with violence himself, he observed and understood, from the outside, love and affection. He understood society and dynamics and morals well enough from his time watching the DeLaceys, and still chose to burn down their house and murder an innocent child - Creature knew better, and he chose violence and he chose revenge. You say it could have been prevented ‘with an ounce of decency’ on Victor’s part. But the Creature was at fault in the first place for understanding the gravity of what he was doing, and still choosing to murder. This shouldn’t have been something Victor was expected to prevent - Creature zsimply should not have done it. Also, if my son murdered my little brother, my best friend/boyfriend, and my sister-cousin-wife, I’d hate him too. That’s justified. 

Also are you genuinely trying to tell me you would be super understanding and reasonable and forgive the murderer of your little brother had you been in Victor’s shoes??

‘I don’t believe revenge is ever justified. If Victor had killed the creature from a sense of justice or wanting to protect others, I could have accepted that.  But, it wasn’t that, imho.’ But you can accept (not condone, but accept) and sympathize with Creature’s actions, who murdered innocent people for revenge? What horrible act of revenge did Victor even perform? He realized that people shouldn’t make ready-to-go-GFs and went back on a deal that could have killed him or made him deathly sick?  

I think pinning the responsibility of Justine’s execution wholly on Victor is wrong, and blaming his inaction entirely on pure cowardice is wrong as well.

Victor had just barely recovered from a near death experience where he was feverish and hallucinating (and possibly still hallucinating just days before, after walking out all day and night in the rain). He was not thinking clearly and certainly not in a proper state to testify for someone on trial and/or defend himself on trial if he put the blame on himself.

Also, I don’t expect Victor to be the beacon of morals and sound reasoning not only after his brother was just MURDERED, but also after just recovering from a near-death experience, while suffering from untreated severe mental illness that actively disrupts reality.

Victor’s reasoning for not speaking up about the Creature in court was this:

“My first thought was to discover what I knew of the murderer, and cause instant pursuit to be made. But I paused when I reflected on the story that I had to tell. A being whom I myself had formed, and endued with life, had met me at midnight among the precipices of an inaccessible mountain. I remembered also the nervous fever with which I had been seized just at the time that I dated my creation, and which would give an air of delirium to a tale otherwise so utterly improbable. I well knew that if any other had communicated such a relation to me, I should have looked upon it as the ravings of insanity… These reflections determined me, and I resolved to remain silent”

His original intent WAS to tell everyone the truth, so that the Creature could be condemned. He immediately told his family - the people closest to him - that he knew the murderer, and that it couldn’t be Justine. They all dismiss him immediately (apart from Elizabeth, who was bent on Justine’s innocence). If his own family won’t believe him, how is he supposed to sway the court? 

So Victor decides not to tell the court, because he believed that they would take him (a person who had been recently sick, hallucinatory and feverish for months) and think it the ramblings of a madman or of the ill (which was exactly what Henry did to him, what his family did to him, and what the police did to him). And while we don’t know what would have happened had Victor actually told the court, we do have a similar circumstance after Elizabeth’s death where, after a similar bout of illness, Victor goes straight to the magistrate and tells them the story. He was not believed and was dismissed. So Victor’s reasoning doesn’t really feel unfounded here, and definitely not from a place of pure cowardice and/or pride.

I don’t feel there was any good possible outcome for the trial. What struck me as the most unfair was not Victor’s actions or lack of action but the way Justine was trialed itself. The judges manipulated her into a coerced confession. Her confessor threatened excommunication and damnation until she began to think she was the monster that he said she was. Justine’s confession is what decided her fate above all else, not Victor’s lack of intervention.

You criticize Victor for 1) abandoning and hating his son, and 2) for not standing up for Justine in court. But if he had taken responsibility and viewed the creature as his child, what was Victor supposed to do? Point the finger at the Creature, his child, and condemn him for a murder in which he knows he would have been executed for had they believed him? 

The only other options Victor really had to 1) make up a feasible lie that he saw a strange man in the area, which would not be able to hold up against the literal evidence in Justine’s pocket, is easily dismissed as the ramblings of someone who was recently sick and feverish and spent the whole night walking in the rain, AND Victor wasn’t even in the area during the time of the crime or 2) Defend Justine’s character, which is what he DOES do before and after the trial (quote “my passionate and indignant appeals were lost on [the court]”), and exactly what Elizabeth does, which fails both times. He did try, just not in a way that would make himself out to be a madman and discredit everything he was saying.

At this point in the book, Victor had absolutely no evidence. Not even no evidence to present to the court - no evidence that the Creature had done it At All. Even if he made something up, it wouldn’t be as damning as the literal locket in Justine’s pocket. The only reason why Victor latched onto the idea of the Creature being the murderer of William was because, during a storm, he saw (or hallucinated) the silhouette of a tall figure that sort of resembled the Creature on his way home to Geneva. This took place OUTSIDE OF GENEVA, not even in the area William was murdered. It just so happened that Victor was correct and the Creature HAD killed William, but Victor was still jumping to conclusions at this point.

I also think it’s important to take in the context of Victor’s upbringing here. His father was a well-respected, distinguished syndic/judge. Victor grew up with a strong belief in the legal system. Before the trial he says something along the lines of “there's no WAY they would condemn Justine only on circumstantial evidence!” He had faith in it, he grew up with faith in it. If Victor had settled on a half-truth and pulled up and tried to go “I saw a big scary man” the court would have dismissed it as the ramblings of a sickly madman, and it could have tainted the Frankenstein family’s reputation and his father’s standing, who have historically for generations been counsellors and syndics. The current generation of Frankensteins including Victor were being reared and expected to carry on this legacy as well.

Justine’s explanation during her trial (essentially I didn’t do it, I wasn’t there, I don’t know how the locket got in my pocket) was much more feasible than Victor’s (I built a corpse man in my dorm room and I think I saw him in the middle of the night during a storm miles away from the crime scene so I just KNOW he killed William!) which wound up being the actual truth, and Justine was still executed.

He feels genuine remorse, guilt and self-hatred throughout the trial, and even has suicidal thoughts following it. He blames himself and thinks, paraphrasing here, “the deed [William’s murder] was not mine in name but in effect.” This wasn’t him being entirely self-pitying, self-preservational, shirking blame and sitting trembling in court here.

And while I agree that Victor is an unreliable narrator, I don’t think Victor’s reliability as a narrator matters much here about the whole ‘I’ll be with you on your wedding night’ shtick. I think Vic misinterpreted Creature here, that he genuinely thought the Creature was talking about him, not that he was making up this misinterpretation after the fact to glamorize things for Walton. And if we’re going to cherry-pick and dismiss what Victor says when it suits your argument then that same line of reasoning should apply to the Creature, who is ALSO an unreliable narrator and IMO just as unreliable if not more so.

Even if Victor married Elizabeth for selfish reasons (I don’t think this is true but I digress), he was still expected to marry her for the good of the family. It has been an expectation for them to be wed since they were six, they promised it to their mother together as her literal dying wish, Alphonse later tells Victor it would bring him happiness and unite the family in their time of mourning, etc. Even if Victor’s own intentions in marrying her were somehow selfish, its effect on the family wouldn’t have been selfish - they had told him it would make them happy. And I believe Elizabeth would have been harmed either way, had they been wed or not - he arguably loved Henry just as much as Elizabeth, and the Creature had no issues offing him, no marriage involved.

And blaming Victor and calling it an act of abject cowardice for being “terrified and traumatized” after abandoning the creature is. Uh. Let’s not blame trauma victims for. Having trauma??

The Creature made things worse, too. He could have. Y’know. Not murdered 3 people.

 I don’t think we should continue to blame Victor for making things worse when he really made very little choices (and had very little opportunity TO make choices) in the first place. /nm

So I finished reading the original Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, and I do not understand in the SLIGHTEST why people insist that in the book the Creature is the victim of the story and Victor is the villain. Did we read the same fucking book??!!! The Creature is literally one of the most malicious villains I have EVER seen put to paper and actively chooses to commit evil act after evil act despite KNOWING it is wrong and feeling remorse and feeling horrible and yet consistently taunts and destroys Victor’s life OVER AND OVER.

The Creature kept bemoaning again and again that Victor had no idea the extent of his misery, that he was the most miserable creature on earth and nothing could fix this and I just??? Did people take him at his word??? The Creature of course believes this, but you go through the book seeing Victor grieve his loved ones viscerally and end up in prison accused of murdering his best friend, and a mental institution for what is likely psychosis. There is so much evidence in the book that the Creature is 100% biased and knew EXACTLY what he was doing in making Victor miserable and I agree in Walton calling him a hypocrite at the end. I just don’t understand how people can say he is the victim of this book when it describes in extremely visceral detail how the Creature systematically killed four people that Victor loved, the first being his 12 year old brother, all to make him miserable for the mistake of creating him. He never even SPOKE to Victor until he killed two people. Five people died in total, not counting Victor, considering his father died of grief due to Elizabeth’s death too.

Victor’s fuckups in this book, at least in my opinion, were normal human reactions to extreme situations. His single dumbest decision was running away from the Creature in horror when he brought him to life. He is an impulsive, reckless person but NONE of what he suffered could be justified by the Creature.

This is a massive ESH situation, heavily leaning towards the Creature as the biggest asshole in this entire story. I don’t even think his age justifies this, he acts and thinks and talks like an adult. He is fully cognizant of what he is doing to Victor and it is with the purpose of torturing him. He STATES this numerous times.

I don’t know where the hell the take that he is the victim of the story comes from because holy shit I don’t think it’s from people who read Mary Shelley’s book.