Caring About Frankenstein Was A Mistake Because I Was Just Subjected To Someone’s Horrid Take Out Of

idol achilles + beanie baby king achilles = constantly getting gifted beanie babies and not knowing what to do about it achilles.

i also finally have a reason to play around with these tweet generators. im having the time of my life. evidence attached below.

all the anti-abortion votes are crazy when victor literally has the metaphor for an abortion within the book. put some respect on his name

Fascinating trend I’ve noticed from lurking in Frankenstein-related tags:

If there’s a male construct, people frame him as the creator’s child. He has full agency and personhood and deserves to be raised in a family. The most obvious example of this is Frankenstein’s Creature, but you’ll see echoes of it with creators of robots, Pinocchio, etc.

If there’s a female construct, people frame it as expected that she’s created to be a romantic/sexual object. I saw a few posts that Pygmalion is morally superior to Victor Frankenstein because he fell in love with his creation, for instance. I don’t need to go into the dozens of “make a female robot and fall for her” tropes.

The most uncomfortable intersection of this dichotomy are the countless posts insisting that it was Victor’s duty as a father to create a female to gift to his son—and that the “wait but she’ll be an actual person of her own” reservations Victor had in the book were immoral. He owes his son (male construct = family, agency, personhood) the gift of a person (female construct = object, no agency, not family). She wouldn’t be a daughter, just “the Bride.” Nothing about Víctor owing her happiness, but the exact opposite: that she must be custom-designed to be miserable and rejected so she’d be trapped with the male-creature.

For a piece of literature where personhood is such a central theme, it’s a disturbing and disappointing trend.

Feeling some kind of way about these passages from one of the books I've been consulting for my project on melancholia, which was written by Johann Freitag, who lived from 1587-1654.

In it, Freitag (who was a doctor) talks about how difficult it is to cure melancholy, and how patients often grow depressed, suspicious, and angry over the fact that their symptoms persist for months, years, or even their whole lives. He also describes melancholy as an "insolent guest, who doesn't obey the guest-rules" -- a description I absolutely love, in part because it sounds an awful lot like the way my friends and I talk about our own mental illnesses today.

The whole section just feels so true to my own experiences with mental illness (particularly fairly treatment-resistant mental illness), hundreds of years later. It's exactly why I chose this topic for my research project, and really incredible to me.

In the clerb(al) we all fam(kenstein)

FRANKENSTEIN, Mary Shelley | WISHBONE CLASSICS FRANKENSTEIN, Micheal Burgan | THE ROOM WHERE THE CORPSE LAY, Bernie Wrightson | FRANKENSTEIN, Alexander Utz | FRANKENSTEIN, Director Kevin Connor | THE MODERN PROMETHEUS, Nicole Mello | FRANKENSTEIN, Deborah Tempest | | FRANKENSTEIN, Mary Shelley.

victor's grief for henry

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 what now @petricharme

yeah

imagine if victor frankenstein was a modern day influencer. he records an unboxing video for his youtube channel (account name “the modern prometheus”) and he’s like “hi re-animators! before the video starts, make sure to hit that red subscribe button down below if you want more content like this. today we will be unboxing…” and then the camera pans over to a person lying on an autopsy table

Very conscious that across the board Basil is emotionally disconnected and wrapped up in his own head and actively avoids reassessing his ingrained opinions and that this is key to his downfall etc… but I’m really realising the degree to which Basil does not process anything Dorian says?

Exhibit A:

Dorian Gray turned and looked at him. “I believe you would, Basil. You like your art better than your friends. I am no more to you than a green bronze figure. Hardly as much, I dare say.”

The painter stared in amazement. It was so unlike Dorian to speak like that. What had happened? He seemed quite angry. His face was flushed and his cheeks burning.

“Yes,” he continued, “I am less to you than your ivory Hermes or your silver Faun. You will like them always. How long will you like me? Till I have my first wrinkle, I suppose. […]”

Minutes later:

The painter bit his lip and walked over, cup in hand, to the picture. “I shall stay with the real Dorian,” he said, sadly.

“Is it the real Dorian?” cried the original of the portrait, strolling across to him. “Am I really like that?”

“Yes; you are just like that.”

“How wonderful, Basil!”

“At least you are like it in appearance. But it will never alter,” sighed Hallward. “That is something.”

Exhibit B:

“[…] I am changed, but you must always be my friend. Of course, I am very fond of Harry. But I know that you are better than he is. You are not stronger–you are too much afraid of life–but you are better. And how happy we used to be together! Don’t leave me, Basil, and don’t quarrel with me. I am what I am. There is nothing more to be said.“

Minutes later:

“[…] But you mustn’t talk about worship. It is foolish. You and I are friends, Basil, and we must always remain so.“ 

“You have got Harry,” said the painter sadly.

Addition: I have realised on pasting these back-to-back how much the problem for Dorian with Basil’s self-diminishing shows up here… Because Basil has already designated himself this role of passiveness, unimportance, and lack of value to Dorian’s life relative to his own feelings, he either refuses to or isn’t capable of processing anything contradictory. This then internally absolves him of any responsibility for affecting Dorian’s emotional state, as he doesn’t acknowledge he has the capacity to do so to any significant degree - not to have his words taken on as genuinely hurtful, and simultaneously not to have his presence be genuinely wanted.