My Version Of Victor Frankenstein

because frankenstein: a new musical content is elusive as all hell, i’ve created a comprehensive list of all the boots, clips, images, interviews, rehearsals, instrumentals, etc. that i could find that i thought were interesting (2007 original cast, with hunter foster as victor) including boots of four full songs!

none of these are mine/were taken by me, just a compilation of things i found and thought were interesting :+) feel free to comment or message me directly with any errors, suggestions, additions, or anything i missed! here’s the link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VwWzjbVP4FhxfhLzOnYZx7V1T-s5WdXdzK479dadfn4/edit?usp=sharing

i agree with most of this, except one major point: victor’s motivation to find the secret of life wasn’t spurred by caroline’s death. there’s no evidence to suggest this in-text - it wasn’t about reanimation (this concept was only mentioned once in a throwaway line, and it was not regarding caroline), it was about creating new life. what he wound up doing was not really reversing death, but what was, essentially, childbirth. this is a significant detail when you consider it in the context of victor and elizabeth’s relationship - if victor’s goal was to create life, and he intentionally foregoes women (elizabeth) in this process, then is it that big of a leap to suggest he was doing so so that he wouldn’t have to perform incest?

now if we step back and take a look at the events before the creature’s creation, i really do think they saw each other as siblings - considering the context of elizabeth being adopted into the frankenstein family, elizabeth and victor referring to each other as cousins, and being in an arranged marriage to victor (both normal things in higher society but strange when paired together), and that caroline selects elizabeth specifically because she had a background similar to her own, a daughter that would be like her. then she calls elizabeth her favorite, and rears her and victor under the expectation that they are to be wed when they are older. from the age of six, victor and elizabeth, notably TOGETHER, were helping raise ernest (and later william) while both caroline and alphonse were still in the picture, described as his “constant nurses”... and if i remember correctly, at this point alphonse had retired after ernest’s birth specifically to care for his children, yet elizabeth and victor are still raising their younger siblings, treating ernest as if he were their child... and then caroline, as her literal dying wish, has elizabeth promise to marry her son and take her place in the family and help raise her other children.

it’s as if caroline grooms elizabeth into being this second version of her, which makes her dictating victor and elizabeth’s marriage to each other all the more horrible.

there’s several moments that make it clear that elizabeth and victor view each other as family, or at the very least, are romantically disinterested in each other. elizabeth bringing up in letters how she and victor as a pair is strange, giving victor several outs to their marriage, elizabeth literally hitting the nail on the head when suggesting victor considers himself honor-bound to fulfill his parent’s wishes, their hesitance on their wedding day, elizabeth referring to william (and by extension, ernest and victor) as a brother during justine’s trial, victor’s dream where he’s kissing elizabeth and then she literally turns into his mother in his arms, etc.

and before all that - there’s this constant, excessive dependence on victor for emotional support, and it started in childhood, from which he was his parents “plaything” and their “idol” and where, growing up, “[caroline’s] firmest hopes of future happiness were placed on the prospect of [elizabeth and victor’s] union” and, after her death, “this expectation [would be] the consolation of [his] father.” 

so now we have victor, who his parents have been emotionally dependent on all his life, who is expected to carry on his family’s legacy, who is in an arranged marriage he doesn’t want, with someone who is his cousin/sister/acting as his mother stand-in. under all this expectation, this marriage he has literally been raised with, he doesn’t try to subvert it entirely, no, he’s been told that his family’s happiness depends on this marriage! but he does the best he could in the situation he’s been given, dodging an act of incest by performing the act of creating life by himself, by making the creature.

Let's talk about Victor...

But not in the usual way.

Warnings: Will contain some talk of Grooming and incest.

And warnings for some large spoilers for the Frankenstein novel. If you're still reading it, I do suggest not reading this post.

We discuss a lot, Victor's faults, what he could have done better and done different, ect. We are not going to be discussing that for this, for now we are putting those discussions and debates aside.

There is one large, hmm, complaint or judgement perhaps, that's always not quite sat right with me. And that's, his relationship with Elizabeth, and how it's treated as his fault. And I'm not talking about how he treats her, or what happens to Elizabeth or anything like that. I'm talking about how it's often treated like the relationship itself is his fault and he's a disgusting pig for it. When honestly...I feel he's a victim of it as well.

Now, of course, this is my interpretation of things. I know not everyone agrees or will agree with it, which is perfectly fine. This is my interpretation of something in a story that is meant to have different interpretations. This is just something I feel and I feel like is not often discussed. In fact I haven't even seen it discussed.

So, here we go.

I feel like both Victor and Elizabeth are victims and didn't really have a choice in the matter of the relationship. Yes, by the times, Victor has an advantage of being a man and Elizabeth has to be a wife and be dependent on him, I'm not saying that isn't true.

I'm talking about his mother. Caroline. I feel, in pointing the finger at Victor for the relationship with Elizabeth, his mother is often forgotten. His mother, whether you're doing the version where Elizabeth is his cousin or adopted sister, basically took Elizabeth in, and immediately decides she'd be the perfect match for her boy.

And told them that. Constantly. As they were growing up. As they were learning.

I do believe, Victor and Elizabeth loved each other, as best friends, as siblings. I don't think they were ever really allowed to think of it as anything other then romantic love though. And so that's how they accepted it. It's how his, and honestly their, mother saw it.

And then to make it worse. Caroline's death. His mother, who, when you look into the novel, really, who's death really begins Victor's physiological breakdown. What leads him to want to, really, defeat and overcome death.

On her deathbed. Her dying wish, she grabs their hands and tells Victor and Elizabeth it is her dying wish to see them wed. That she's always thought this, thought they were perfect together, and always wanted this. And please, I ask to really think on this, after all mentioned above.

We talk about when his father asks him, "Maybe you don't want to marry Elizabeth, maybe you've come to see her as a sister." And he said yes, he loves her and still wants to marry her.

Y'all. Maybe this is just my interpretation, but he had never been given a choice to think anything otherwise. His mother had never allowed anything else, had constantly shoved into their heads their relationship would be/was romantic. To the point they believed it.

Anything they felt towards each other, any affection, any love, was and had to be romantic.

After all, it was their mother, who raised them, put this into their heads as children and it was her dying wish for them to be married, so what else could it be?

Yes, it gets messy when you have to take in the time of things. That it is true, for the time, you were lucky to even just like the person you were to marry. Maybe that's what Caroline saw, saw two people that could marry, and the relationship wouldn't be horrible. But even if that was her reasoning, I don't think it makes her innocent. And I do think she greatly screwed both Elizabeth and Victor up.

Their relationship has then been put through much in adaptions. Victor gets put as a creep, sometimes outright predator to Elizabeth. The part connecting them as cousins or adoptive siblings gets cut out and they get put as the romantic couple.

Hell, look at Bride of Frankenstein. She's the beautiful, clearly all is good and Christian, humane option Victor Henry (because for some reason their names were switched) turns his back on. Which is wrong and evil and against God. And eventually, he comes back to, and they get to escape the tower, run off as the tower explores with the Monster, the Bride, and Dr. Pretorius in it. And have a happy ending. They're the romantic couple you're supposed to cheer for, as these movies set things up.

We have been made to veiw them, in many different ways. And sometimes I feel that affects how we then veiw them when looking at the novel. That's just some of the adaptions.

I do, again, think they loved each other. As best friends, as siblings.

Elizabeth deserved better. By her family, by, though I adore him, Adam himself who killed her in revenge for Victor destroying the to-be-reanimated body of his potential mate who may or may not have even liked him. By the time itself, she was born in. She got little time, and deserved better.

Victor cared for her, loved her as a sibling. If he did love anyone romantically in the novel, I do agree with, he romantically loved Henry. But believed he did love Elizabeth, and of course had to repress anything towards another man. But, that takes us on a whole other thing that can be discussed another time.

Thank you for reading all of this, my reasoning, my rambles. Again, my interpretation, but something I feel is not often talked about. In the aspect of Victor's and Elizabeth's relationship, how it came to be, how they thought of each other, I do believe, they were both victims.

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?

“victor frankenstein was selfish” name 5 choices he actually made for himself

FRANKENSTEIN, Mary Shelley | FRANKENSTEIN, Frank Darabont | FRANKENSTEIN, Joellen Bland | FRANKENSTEIN: A NEW MUSICAL, Gary P. Cohen and Jeffrey Jackson | FRANKENSTEIN, Steph Lady & James V. Hart | FRANKENSTEIN, Frank Darabont | FRANKENSTEIN, Mary Shelley.

frankenstein & fatherhood

whaetever

poor Victor Frankenstein I'm projecting every shit I ever had in my life on them

(for your desire to frankenyap-) what is your favorite Henry Clerval Moment™ in the novel?

henry clerval!!!!! my one true love

my favorite moment of his that i cannot believe people don't talk about is him diverting the subject when theyre talking to waldman abt victor's "progress in the sciences." he is so ridiculously thoughtful it's absolutely adorable. ive written out how i think that particular conversation went for a writing exercise and i fell so in love w henry. victor i get it so divinely wrought and beaming with beauty fr

this um. turned into a super long analysis somehow 😭 under the cut

i have a lot more to say about my least favorite henry moment though; i know we all clown on the 1831 turning henry into a colonizer thing, and i absolutely love to make fun of it as well because is was A Choice, but henry's character assassination in the 1831 edition fills me with genuine and outstanding rage. to what extent he just serves as a love letter to percy shelley (i think the idea has merit that clerval was based on percy but i also think it kinda follows the general trend of people attributing mary's genius and independent work to percy at every conceivable opportunity) (if anything i'd argue walton is more like percy) can be debated, but it is so infuriating to me how henry goes from a character that seems to have been written with genuine affection and enthusiasm, hence why he's so charming, to being a glorified plot device in the 1831 edition. having henry go from a sensual capital r Romantic whose only goals are to worship nature and discover all the beautiful corners of the earth, learning eastern languages and going to england just for the sake of living out a worldly life, to some businessman whose actions are spurred on by some manly commitment to "enterprise" is so annoying to me. i really really do hate what she did to him in the 1831 edition but i get why. this is a trend with the 1831 edition: making the male characters' more sensitive and emotionally demonstrative behaviors less obvious and making the female characters' more headstrong personalities milder show how mary had to nuke the subtleties of the novel to make it more palatable and interpretable for victorian society. ofc she was older when she wrote the 1831 edition so much of it could've been her own shifting perspective but i maintain that 1831 is decidedly much more conservative and seems to tread on eggshells on the subjects mary used to be so bold discussing in frankenstein. i don't think that one edition is better than the other, there are things i like and disliked about both, but i do think you need to know the differences between the two and their exigence to get a holistic understanding of the novel.

jesus christ i lost the plot. anyway henry come home the husband and kids miss you <3

The first monster in Frankenstein is not this Creature... The famous Creature is a peripheral ephemeron, glimpsed by the crew on Walton's polar adventure as a near mirage on a far-distant ice-plain... The immediate astonishment is the appearance the next morning of a haggard being off the side of the ship on a fragment of ice, alone in a sled but for one dog, asking which direction the ship is headed. "Good God! Margaret, if you had seen the man who thus capitulated for his safety, your surprise would have been boundless," writes Captain Walton to his sister; "His limbs were nearly frozen, and his body dreadfully emaciated by fatigue and suffering. I never saw a man in so wretched a condition." This is the first dreadful wretch in Mary Shelley's novel, and soon the star of its first "Frankenstein" moment. The wretched being faints dead away then is revived, animated, by the crew... This crew brings life out of death. In a body dreadful to behold, teeth-gnashing, mad, wild, Victor Frankenstein receives concerned parental care as a fellow human being. Everything he recounts hereafter bears this tremendous irony. Monsters are not born, the Author of Frankenstein proposes; they are made and unmade on the variable scales of human sympathy.

The Annotated Frankenstein edited by Susan J. Wolfson and Ronald Levao

here u go clervalstein enjoyers 😍😳😼