Rob.txt - Blog Posts

walton is a stronger man than me because if i found the man who was the culmination of my lifelong dreams of true connection and everything i could possibly want in a friend, who talked to me about my interests at length and encouraged me and told me i would be successful in my endeavors, who wept for me after i confided my deepest desires and ambitions to him, who used the language of my heart, who sympathized with and loved me, and who told me all of his greatest flaws and mistakes and his harrowing several-hundred-pages long life story including the murders of his entire family, upon which i treated him with nothing but understanding and kindness and would do anything to return him to happiness and shoulder his woes, all while tenderly nursing back him from the brink of death while expecting nothing in return, even despite my growing concerns of a mutiny going on, and after all this he told me "I thank you, Walton [...] but think you that any can replace those who are gone? Can any man be to me as Clerval was?" i would just walk off the boat

i was trying to find a specific post that i half-remembered at like 4am last night but out of context this is really funny

this is what i was doing in 2022. frankenstein coffee shop AU but the creature doesnt exist its just clervalstein both swooning over the marine biology student (whose minoring in poetry) together. peak nonsense

𝓕𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓴𝔂steinery

slander on my good name

who let these lines go so hard in an otherwise terrible script. they had no right

hey so it turns out nick dear’s frankenstein is funny as fuck. what do you mean full of beans

im going to reread frankenstein soon and then we'll be so back

i think i agree with some of what you're saying here, particularly the justine-trial thing and also victor's lack of foresight (ironic, then, that prometheus was the god of foresight), but i'll challenge you in regard to the "victor makes every wrong decision possible" bit: what was the RIGHT decision? realistically, given his knowledge of the situation (people tend to forget this is a story being told in retrospect and act like victor should have been omniscient...) and the hand that he was dealt, what could victor have possibly done that could have actually altered his outcome? personally i tend to veer towards the belief that after the animation of the creature, he could have done, well, Nothing, or at least very little (i'll elaborate on why i think so if you'd like, do let me know!)—narratively, victor's greatest, irreversible sin is the creation of the creature itself, and this is why frankenstein functions as a tragedy.

in regard to the creature though i'd have to disagree. the creature loves and appreciates humanity, he doesn't resent it! that's why he wants to be a part of it so badly, and keeps trying over and over despite the violence he's faced with! that's why he feels the sting of rejection so badly and reacts the way he does! and even after he becomes embittered after the delaceys, his request of victor to make him a mate is an inherently human one, meant to emulate the people and families and relationships that he's read about and observed!

not only that, he explicitly finds it UNnatural to commit acts of violence. when he hears of such acts while listening to felix teach safie, this is outlined clearly:

Was man, indeed, at once so powerful, so virtuous, and magnificent, yet so vicious and base? He appeared at one time a mere scion of the evil principle, and at another, as all that can be conceived of noble and godlike. To be a great and virtuous man appeared the highest honour that can befall a sensitive being; to be base and vicious, as many on record have been, appeared the lowest degradation, a condition more abject than that of the blind mole or harmless worm. For a long time I could not conceive how one man could go forth to murder his fellow, or even why there were laws and governments; but when I heard details of vice and bloodshed, my wonder ceased, and I turned away with disgust and loathing.

and later, this is his reaction to reading plutarch's lives:

I read of men concerned in public affairs, governing or massacring their species. I felt the greatest ardour for virtue rise within me, and abhorrence for vice... I was of course led to admire peaceable lawgivers, Numa, Solon, and Lycurgus, in preference to Romulus and Theseus.

that is, he naturally appreciates virtue and looks towards pacifists as role models. and in general, i think it's wrong to say the creature's only been taught hatred and violence. even if he never experienced directly it himself, he understood and experienced, through lessons with safie and through his own readings, virtue, compassion, etc. from the outside. (arguably, his relationship with the delaceys was parasocial enough that at the very least he believed, and at one point, felt, that he had taken part in this sharing of virtue and compassion as well—he did not feel completely separated from it).

even after being stoned by the village people, being met with fear, rejection, violence, etc. the creature thinks this:

As yet I looked upon crime as a distant evil; benevolence and generosity were ever present before me, inciting within me a desire to become an actor in the busy scene where so many admirable qualities were called forth and displayed.

crime is still a "distant evil"; triumphed by the "benevolence and generosity" ever before him. there's no resentment of the world, no desire to reproduce the violence he's faced, not until his confrontation with the delaceys. it is this rejection, not victor's rejection, that is the creature's undoing. this is when he burns down their house, chooses to take revenge on victor, murders william, etc.

even then, his natural distaste for violence and appreciation for virtue is so strong, to the extent that he abhors himself for committing these same acts (go look at his interaction with walton at the end). and ultimately THAT is why i find the creature unforgivable, because it's shown time and time again violence is not this sort of knee-jerk reaction to him, and when he chooses to do the things he does, it's with a cultivated knowledge of right versus wrong, and not only that, a cultivated FEELING of right versus wrong. he actively goes against his own morals, detesting himself but refusing to stop all the while, for the sake of revenge. but i'll hop off my soap box...

a take on Frankenstein for some reason

There's far more nuance to both Victor and the creature than anyone tends to give either character credit for. The creature isn't evil but also not misunderstood, he's a hyper-intelligent child forced to find his own way in a world that time and time again violently rejects him. The fist time he visits a town they stone him on sight. Of course he resents humanity, and Victor's rejection of him is a final straw. He comes to his own naïve conclusions, and having been shown violence time and time again, finds it natural when something detestable comes before him. So when he finds a child baring his neglectful fathers name, the rage he feels compels him to murder.

That is objectively wrong yes, but you cannot expect anything less from the child who has only been taught hatred and violence.

The creature is like a dog that has been taught to bite without warning because it's never had any other choice. That makes it understandable, tragic but not entirely justified.

equally Victor isn't evil either, people get on his back for not speaking up during Justine's trail (tbf what was he supposed to say? "my big magic monster is the true culprit, no I have no proof of that or even that he exists, just trust me bro") (we even see how poorly that goes when he tells the Sherriff later on in the book), but I attribute that to the fact that Victor was an extremely haunted and prideful person who believed it was up to him to solve his mess (it kinda is but not he way he tries to) because "surely nobody else could!" He's also fairly stupid. Scientifically he's a genius, obviously. But he also makes almost every wrong decision possible and rarely considers the consequences of his actions (He also believes the creature is planning to kill him when it's so unbelievably obvious that he intends to kill Elizabeth). He decides to try and deal with the problem he's caused on his own, but fails so many times that he eventually dies and the creature solves the issue of his existence himself. Victor was more of a deadbeat, a narcissist and a moron than a villain.

Because Frankenstein is not a story with true villains, just bad people

imagine jekyll and hyde but werewolf style. with a twist. jekyll is a sheep/ram that transforms into hyde (wolf). something something wolf in sheeps clothing metaphor. is this anything

reviews for the name victor

oh my god how could you keep this in the tags @lemonavocado. your insights are as impressive as ever

i’ve got way too much to say on the concept of parentification in frankenstein so i won’t do it here, but its interesting too that this role of being “the rock” for the family that you prescribe (accurately and very eloquently, mind you!) to elizabeth is also still expected of victor. for example:

“‘We all,’ said [Elizabeth], ‘depend upon you; and if you are miserable, what must be our feelings?’"

“Come, dearest Victor; you alone can console Elizabeth… We are all unhappy; but will not that be an additional motive for you, my son, to return and be our comforter?”

“Come, Victor; not brooding thoughts of vengeance against the assassin, but with feelings of peace and gentleness, that will heal, instead of festering the wounds of our minds.”

but of course, he fails to uphold it, which is significant for both parties because it’s a traditionally masculine ideal. it’s a clever, layered subversion that we find it in elizabeth instead!!

there are many interpretations on just what the “nervous fever, which confined me for several months” that victor experienced was, but i don’t think anyone has yet put forward the idea that it was based on hypochondriasis. (in general i will refer to this source, a practical treatise of hypochondriasis written by john hill in 1766, in regard to just what hypochondriasis is–it’s a very interesting read and i would recommend it!)

hypochondriasis (which now carries a different meaning–i am not referring to hypochondria i.e. abnormal anxiety/fear about one’s health) was a non-specific condition that encompassed many varieties of the “nervous illnesses” of the 18th century. the concept was derived from theories of bodily humors and was once considered a special form of melancholy resulting from an excess of black bile, or alternatively that it was an obstruction in the body caused by high emotion, among many other explanations–but in hypochondriasis, and in the 17-18th century in general, the idea that the health of the mind and the body were inherently linked was HUGE. while it’s not readily definable it was generally seen as the masculine equivalent to hysteria in females, which is thematically important in ways i’ll get into later.

in short, hypochondriasis: 

is caused by grief and/or “fatigue of the mind” i.e. intense, prolonged study or focus on one thing, particularly night studies

those who are educated, studious, isolated, sedate and inactive (not among nature), are more susceptible

typically begins and reoccurs in autumn months

results in self-isolation, depression, a “disrelish of amusements,” wild thoughts or overthinking on one subject, and a sense of oppression in the body

physically, it causes low appetite, heart palpitations, dizziness, confusion, night sweats, emaciation, convulsions, etc

fits of high emotion, excessive exercise, and shock can cause relapses, even months or years after the first event

is said to be cured by mild medicine, but no chemistry; but above all, it is cured by the study of nature, and hypochondriac people should get frequent air and exercise

the parallels to victor are rather blatant. the study of natural philosophy becomes victor’s “sole occupation,” and he describes being “animated by an almost supernatural enthusiasm.” in the treatise, those subject to the disease are said to be those who have “greatly exerted [the mind’s] powers” and have ”determined resolution…intent upon their object [of attention]”. It’s also noted that “whatever tends to the ennobling of the soul has equal share in bringing on this weakness of the body.” 

it is this focus on creating new life, and later, this self-isolation, that results in his “cheek becom[ing] pale with study,” and his “person had become emaciated with confinement” and he “seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit.” it is to the extent that his eyes become “insensible to the charms of nature” and he neglects correspondence with his friends and family. he becomes “oppressed by a slow fever…and nervous to a most painful degree” and, like those with hypochondriasis, believes that “exercise and amusement would then drive away incipient disease.”

it’s also notable that the height of victor’s illness–directly after the creature’s creation–occurs, like in hypochondriasis, in autumn. during it, he describes many of the physical symptoms attributed to hypochondriasis: weakness, heart palpitations, dizziness, wild thoughts and paranoia, convulsions, etc. it’s only after henry’s care that he is able to recover, and in particular, after viewing a scene of nature:

I remember the first time I became capable of observing outward objects with any kind of pleasure, I perceived that the fallen leaves had disappeared, and that the young buds were shooting forth from the trees that shaded my window. It was a divine spring; and the season contributed greatly to my convalescence. I felt also sentiments of joy and affection revive in my bosom; my gloom disappeared, and in a short time I became as cheerful as before I was attacked by the fatal passion.

throughout the novel, these symptoms will reoccur (relapse) in times of high emotion, shock and stress–justine’s trial, the confrontation at the alps, during the creation of the female creature, etc. overall he meets the marks of hypochondriasis nearly down to a T.

and, returning to the idea that hypochondriasis is essentially the male equivalent of hysteria, which was only attributed to females at the time, this is relevant because frankenstein is a female narrative synthesized through a male narrator. by extension victor also meets many of the marks of hysteria. in general, the creature’s creation feminizes victor: victor remarks that he becomes “as timid as a love-sick girl” during his illness and describes his fever as “painfully nervous” and alternating between “tremor” and “passionate ardour.” during and after the creation process, victor exhibits what was then perceived as “feminine” emotional freedom–anxiety, weakness, self-doubt, fear, etcetera. considering this in-context that 1) victor’s labors allude to mary shelley’s own traumatic experiences with childbirth 2) this was written in a turning point in history where high-class men who had "nervous" senses/feelings were beginning to be seen as effete instead of stylish (they used to be thought fashionable because they were more in-touch with their senses than the lower classes or something to that effect), this all seems very intentional.

now, what do i think victor actually had (since humorism has, obviously, since been disproved)? a 2-for-1 psychotic disorder + whatever concoction of germs he acquired from sticking his hands in corpses for weeks on end combo. but that’s for another day!

there are many interpretations on just what the “nervous fever, which confined me for several months” that victor experienced was, but i don’t think anyone has yet put forward the idea that it was based on hypochondriasis. (in general i will refer to this source, a practical treatise of hypochondriasis written by john hill in 1766, in regard to just what hypochondriasis is–it’s a very interesting read and i would recommend it!)

hypochondriasis (which now carries a different meaning–i am not referring to hypochondria i.e. abnormal anxiety/fear about one’s health) was a non-specific condition that encompassed many varieties of the “nervous illnesses” of the 18th century. the concept was derived from theories of bodily humors and was once considered a special form of melancholy resulting from an excess of black bile, or alternatively that it was an obstruction in the body caused by high emotion, among many other explanations–but in hypochondriasis, and in the 17-18th century in general, the idea that the health of the mind and the body were inherently linked was HUGE. while it’s not readily definable it was generally seen as the masculine equivalent to hysteria in females, which is thematically important in ways i’ll get into later.

in short, hypochondriasis: 

is caused by grief and/or “fatigue of the mind” i.e. intense, prolonged study or focus on one thing, particularly night studies

those who are educated, studious, isolated, sedate and inactive (not among nature), are more susceptible

typically begins and reoccurs in autumn months

results in self-isolation, depression, a “disrelish of amusements,” wild thoughts or overthinking on one subject, and a sense of oppression in the body

physically, it causes low appetite, heart palpitations, dizziness, confusion, night sweats, emaciation, convulsions, etc

fits of high emotion, excessive exercise, and shock can cause relapses, even months or years after the first event

is said to be cured by mild medicine, but no chemistry; but above all, it is cured by the study of nature, and hypochondriac people should get frequent air and exercise

the parallels to victor are rather blatant. the study of natural philosophy becomes victor’s “sole occupation,” and he describes being “animated by an almost supernatural enthusiasm.” in the treatise, those subject to the disease are said to be those who have “greatly exerted [the mind’s] powers” and have ”determined resolution…intent upon their object [of attention]”. It’s also noted that “whatever tends to the ennobling of the soul has equal share in bringing on this weakness of the body.” 

it is this focus on creating new life, and later, this self-isolation, that results in his “cheek becom[ing] pale with study,” and his “person had become emaciated with confinement” and he “seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit.” it is to the extent that his eyes become “insensible to the charms of nature” and he neglects correspondence with his friends and family. he becomes “oppressed by a slow fever…and nervous to a most painful degree” and, like those with hypochondriasis, believes that “exercise and amusement would then drive away incipient disease.”

it’s also notable that the height of victor’s illness–directly after the creature’s creation–occurs, like in hypochondriasis, in autumn. during it, he describes many of the physical symptoms attributed to hypochondriasis: weakness, heart palpitations, dizziness, wild thoughts and paranoia, convulsions, etc. it’s only after henry’s care that he is able to recover, and in particular, after viewing a scene of nature:

I remember the first time I became capable of observing outward objects with any kind of pleasure, I perceived that the fallen leaves had disappeared, and that the young buds were shooting forth from the trees that shaded my window. It was a divine spring; and the season contributed greatly to my convalescence. I felt also sentiments of joy and affection revive in my bosom; my gloom disappeared, and in a short time I became as cheerful as before I was attacked by the fatal passion.

throughout the novel, these symptoms will reoccur (relapse) in times of high emotion, shock and stress–justine’s trial, the confrontation at the alps, during the creation of the female creature, etc. overall he meets the marks of hypochondriasis nearly down to a T.

and, returning to the idea that hypochondriasis is essentially the male equivalent of hysteria, which was only attributed to females at the time, this is relevant because frankenstein is a female narrative synthesized through a male narrator. by extension victor also meets many of the marks of hysteria. in general, the creature’s creation feminizes victor: victor remarks that he becomes “as timid as a love-sick girl” during his illness and describes his fever as “painfully nervous” and alternating between “tremor” and “passionate ardour.” during and after the creation process, victor exhibits what was then perceived as “feminine” emotional freedom–anxiety, weakness, self-doubt, fear, etcetera. considering this in-context that 1) victor’s labors allude to mary shelley’s own traumatic experiences with childbirth 2) this was written in a turning point in history where high-class men who had "nervous" senses/feelings were beginning to be seen as effete instead of stylish (they used to be thought fashionable because they were more in-touch with their senses than the lower classes or something to that effect), this all seems very intentional.

now, what do i think victor actually had (since humorism has, obviously, since been disproved)? a 2-for-1 psychotic disorder + whatever concoction of germs he acquired from sticking his hands in corpses for weeks on end combo. but that’s for another day!

@kitsu-katsu’s comments (i hope you don’t mind—i thought this was all very clever analysis and wanted to reblog it separately for myself)

Something has been bothering me about the book Frankenstein, and I have to say it.

Why didn’t Victor Frankenstein give the creature a wife but just, like, tie her tubes. Like, the Creature, I’m going to call him Adam, doesn’t know anatomy? He wouldn’t know that. His brain was from a dead guy. That guy probably didn’t know anatomy. Even if he did, Adam wouldn’t know it. Adam is very smart, so even if he did go out and learn 1818 anatomy, Victor could probably just go and be sneaky about it? Not add ovaries? Or heck, get ovaries from someone who was infertile? I mean, there’s lots of couples who are in love and don’t have children. When Adam asked for a bride, he was mostly asking for companionship. He was alone in the world with nobody to talk to.

Frankenstein could have had a happy ending if he was smart about it.

(I know, not the point of the book, but seriously, I feel like this could have been a solution, rather than just point blank destroying the bride, telling the creature no, and having his wife killed as a result)

imagine: victor drawing a portrait of henry during their studying-oriental-languages-together arc (i think he'd be good at art from practice during anatomical studies) and midway through henry glances up at him and victor goes “i’m not doing this for you. i’m doing this to deconstruct the planes of the face, and using it to further my studies” but the whole time he’s swooning and gets to stare at him unabashedly under the guise of drawing

posting these here bc i need them for a thing and my other links BROKE. heres henry signatures

alternatively: every time someone makes a victor hate post henry clerval sheds a tear

every time someone says victor hated the creature because of his scary yellow eyes an angel loses its wings

every time someone says victor hated the creature because of his scary yellow eyes an angel loses its wings

victor's belief that he's responsible for the deaths of his family (by extension of creating the creature) was borne out of excessive guilt, i might go as far as to say bordering on delusions of persecution. id argue walton was more directly responsible for deaths than victor ever was (several members of his crew died on his ship as a result of his inexperience and persistence), but first and foremost the creature was responsible, not victor, and to suggest otherwise i think is blatantly ignoring the creature's autonomy. he had a cultivated understanding of morality and the world's evils and chose, while knowing and feeling that it was a moral wrong, to murder. i think, eventually, it is this willingness to deliberately go against his own morals to commit evil acts that victor considers monstrous, not just the creature's monstrous appearance in of itself, which is one of the defining factors of his choice not to create the female creature.

if anything, id argue this passage is actually proof of victor acknowledging his "failure as a parent" or rather his duty as a parent, its just not done so directly. this is a story being told in retrospect, and that fact colors victor's narration because he already knows the events that are being described. in this sense, the quote seems more of an acknowledgement of this than anything else, particularly with the language of "creature" and "being to which they had given life" used to describe a child, which, like youre saying, are both blatant parallels to how victor describes the creature. if you look at this and then consider it within the context of victor and creature's confrontation on the alps, where victor does actually explicitly admit to his duties as a creator, i think it changes things:

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.

and then, later:

I was moved [...] 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?

in both quotes victor mentions he feels he owes the creature happiness, i.e. the same "train of enjoyment" he experienced in his own childhood, and it is the feelings the creature expressed (stemming from his mistreatment by victor, but also more importantly by society as a whole; i think people tend to overinflate the importance of the creature's "abandonment" by victor in the grand scheme of things) that push victor to this idea. that is, victor pretty directly admits to the effect of his absence on creature.

Victor Frankenstein admits multiple times that him creating the creature led to multiple deaths so he’s responsible in that sense but he assumes it’s because he created a monster but in my opinion, he knows him failing as a parent/abandoning the creature is why it turned out the way that it did, he just won’t admit it, and this passage from chapter one is my prime evidence.

I was their plaything and their idol, and something better—their child, the innocent and helpless creature bestowed on them by Heaven, whom to bring up to good, and whose future lot it was in their hands to direct to happiness or misery, according as they fulfilled their duties towards me. With this deep consciousness of what they owed towards the being to which they had given life, added to the active spirit of tenderness that animated both, it may be imagined that while during every hour of my infant life I received a lesson of patience, of charity, and of self-control, I was so guided by a silken cord that all seemed but one train of enjoyment to me.

”this video is made possible by ingolstadt morgue. not sponsored” victor says while breaking and entering

(for the ask game from a few days ago) could you do Victor for 2, 12, 15 and 24

2. Favorite canon thing about this character?

i had to sit and think because this one was so hard to narrow down. on a surface level i find all sorts of things about him endearing from his mannerisms to his speech patterns, but i think the thing that got me hooked on victor as a character was how emotionally demonstrative he is, particularly for a male protagonist. this also extends generally to his love for nature, for his friends, and his siblings (disregarding the incestuous implications of his relationship with elizabeth...)

i think this was only intensified for me when i started delving into frankenstein academic essays and analysis and then, by extension, the frankenstein fandom, and found that en masse it was people criticizing victor for just what interested me to him in the first place: being emotional, and therefore somehow melodramatic, overreacting, self-centered, egotistical, etc. it was this kind of climate of victor-hate that pushed me to make a tumblr account in the first place. someone had to be the sole victor defender in this barren wasteland

12. What's a headcanon you have for this character?

this is silly and probably not the serious answer you were looking for but like 2 years ago a dear friend of mine and i were joking about how you could catch victor frankenstein in a mouse trap and ever since then his assigned fursona in my head has been a mouse:

15. What's your favorite ship for this character?

by far its waltonstein (robert x victor). im aware clervalstein is vastly more popular, and while im charmed by it in-canon i dont find most depictions of it to my taste. i don't see their relationship as wholly reciprocated–one-sided on walton's end–which is part of the reason why i like their dynamic so much: its established that walton romanticizes the unobtainable, chases the unknown, and that's why he hangs all his hopes on things he cannot feasibly reach. first becoming a famous poet and going down with the greats, then sailing to find the northern passage despite being an inexperienced captain, all the while hoping for this impossibly idealistic image of a companion who would be perfectly tailored to his interests and manners, and then, against all reason, he finds this in victor, wherein victor becomes an extension of this habit, who is dying and too hung up in the past and on martyring himself, because everyone who has grown close to him has been hurt for it, so he cannot love again, or at least in the way walton wants. yet victor still has a reciprocated interest and finds a friend in him, even shares the same sentiment of the importance of friendship, but like he says no man can "be to him as clerval was." its very much wrong place/time but the right person.

ive said this before but i think, too, that if victor had recovered and lived than walton may fall a little less in love with victor. their relationship was founded on their dynamic of sick/caretaker, and beyond that, victor would have already exhausted his story, so there's no air of mystery around him anymore–nothing for walton to glorify or romanticize. ultimately i think even if they had the best of intentions and loved each other, they could not have a healthy or fully mutual relationship, and part of the appeal to me is this tragedy!

24. What other character from another fandom of yours that reminds you of them?

im drawing a bit of a blank on this one because no other character encompasses just what victor Is to me, but theres a whole host of victor-esque characters i could name because he is the literal foundation for the mad scientist archetype. if i was pressed i think id say geoffrey tempest from sorrows of satan by marie corelli (beyond his blatant misogny), and i remember some parts of emil sinclairs early narration in demian by herman hesse reminded me of victor. lucifer/satan from paradise lost also, particuarly the bit where he says he cannot enjoy the beauty of earth for the suffering of his fall, but that almost feels like a cop-out answer.

lastly–and this one is completely unfounded–itd have to be double dee from EEnE.

i don’t think alphonse is necessarily passing down some sort of generational trauma onto his children (to me, the pattern of perpetuating their own abuse onto their children is much more present with caroline, through elizabeth and victor)—but rather he’s imparting the values of a upper-class swiss-christian georgian society that his gender, race, religion, career, social class, etc. dictate. 

what’s interesting, from this angle, is the significance of victor failing to conform and uphold these traditional masculine values: victor was very emotionally demonstrative, and frankenstein was written during a turning point in history where upper-class men who had “nervous” senses/feelings were beginning to be seen as effete instead of stylish (during the romantic era they used to be thought fashionable because they were seen as more in-touch with their senses and with nature then the lower-class). during the creation process, victor describes being “oppressed every night by a slow fever” and becoming “nervous to a most painful degree” (1831), among other hysteric symptoms, which was only attributed to females during the time period. victor himself acknowledges this, when in the same passage he describes himself as being “timid as a love-sick girl” (1823).

because of how the gender switch is able to function within science fiction, victor’s narrative is a traditionally female one synthesized through a male narrator, and shelley is able to disguise themes that would have otherwise been met with affront had they been more blatant. when considering this in the context of the creature's birth, victor is essentially a teenager pregnant out of wedlock alienated from his family in a foreign country–much like mary shelley herself–yet in the end, shelley demonstrates that even being male does not help him, because when it boils down to it he is still a single parent without support. victor also fails to uphold his family’s paternal legacy as syndics and judges, pursuing his passion of natural philosophy/alchemy instead to the disapproval of his father, which he is punished for, as it ultimately leads to the creation of the creature and victor’s subsequent downfall.

i’ve established the link between being outwardly emotional and equating this with femininity (which, if i haven’t made clear, i inherently disagree with btw), but i wanted to acknowledge its consequences for victor. when victor fails to suppress the emotion and grief that alphonse tries to encourage victor to suck up, after the death of clerval, this is mistaken for guilt and he faces months of imprisonment. he is also confined in a mental institution when he appears mad. generally, when being emotional he is disbelieved and not taken seriously, for example during his ramblings to henry when ill at ingolstadt, which were never acknowledged, or when telling the magistrate about the situation and trying to get them to pursue the creature. it very much feels like the way women’s emotions weren't (and aren’t) taken seriously and are undermined, were seen as melodramatic, exaggerated, inferior, etc. this forces victor to take matters into his own hands several times–agreeing to make the female creature after justine’s trial (which ultimately leads to what is essentially abortion), deciding to pursue the creature himself after the magistrate disbelieved him, etc. which always resulted in victor putting himself in situations that were dangerous and risked his life.

we’ve spoken pretty extensively in DMs on how love is conditional amongst the frankensteins, so i won’t reiterate all of that here, but generally, much of alphonse’s characterization feels like a reflection of godwin’s beliefs, particularly his ideas on how grief should be thought about and handled. godwin says this in a letter to mary after her son william (shelley)’s death:

this letter pretty directly parallels a conversation alphonse has with victor after william (frankenstein)’s death:

to me, this recontextualizes a lot of victor and alphonse’s interactions, particularly when viewing victor’s narrative as a feminine/maternal one and, in part, as influenced by shelley's own experiences as a woman, daughter and mother. it also feels significant, then, to point out that shelley chose to dedicate frankenstein to godwin.

It's interesting how the second sentence victor starts the story with is "My ancestors had been for many years counsellors and syndics" and while i always focused on the effect it has on, for example, victor; trying to see the life of alphonse is also interesting in the way we can observe his trauma leaking out into his parenting methods and attitude towards his kids and wife.

Like,

-It is said they have a long history with being important and engaged in country's business. And as we see Alphonsa followed it, (and i highly suspect even when he sent victor to college he still expected him to take over this position later on), probably not having much of a choice either. It was all passed down, and even the character of this job is being passed down too. For example, traits fitting this job - responsibilities/brain over feelings. A sense of duty that follows them everywhere. Love isn't unconditional, it's a duty, as well as everything else they do.

It seems like he's just passing down the generational trauma.

Another instances where his bad experiences are being reflected in his behavior towards victor and others is also seen here:

-His dearest friend suddenly disappeared. Turns out he hid because of hurt pride of losing his fortune, simultaneously almost destroying his daughter's life bc of that as well as his own. and Alphonse felt betrayed that this false pride was more important than their friendship = notice how Alphonse assumes the reason for victor's misery is a false pride. And desperatively wants to keep his family in close-circle, so they won't leave each other. And him.

-He looked for the friend for a long time without stopping, but in the end was disappointed. "But when he entered, misery and despair alone welcomed him. Beaufort had saved but a very small sum of money from the wreck of his fortunes; but it was sufficient to provide him with sustenance for some months, and in the mean time he hoped to procure some respectable imployment in a merchant’s house. The interval was consequently spent in inaction; his grief only became more deep and rankling, when he had leisure for reflection; and at length it took so fast hold of his mind, that at the end of three months he lay on a bed of sickness, incapable of any exertion." = notice how he always thinks despair is useless and leads to even worse consequences, so, feeling things is BAD.

-After making a big deal out of loving and finding the friend, the moment he actually sees him dead, instead of thinking about that or even mentioning alphonse was sad or smth, theres not a single sentence about alphonse's reaction or even of that friend anymore, instead all attention drifts to beautiful poor Caroline and suddenly it's a story about saving her. Everything got romantized. = Obviously, the romantization of grief and suffering was very ingrained in Victor's whole family. It probably came from Alphonse and his ancestors too.

- It's also said in 1818 ver that alphonse really loved his sister (the mother of elizabeth) and she abandoned him (cut him off).

"for some years my father had very little communication with her."

= Now remember alphonse's later words and lessons about how cutting your family off means you are neglecting yourself and your other duties etc.

So yeak, Idk I just love how Frankenstein is also about generational trauma and people who didn't process their feelings ruining their kids' lifes. (and don't get me started on Caroline.)

i’d noticed in the past the almost-parasocial relationships the creature and victor had developed with each other before they ever even met properly, and that bizarrely they both essentially met these pre-conceived notions and fulfilled their expectations despite their speculations being entirely unfounded at the time. i remember a line during the creatures narrative that said he knew victor turned from him in disgust, not because of memory, but from reading his pocket journal—which victor never wrote in after his reaction to the creature’s awakening. previously i just assumed this was a plot hole or something, but i’d never made the connection that all assumptions in the book seem to operate like this. that’s a very interesting point and it puts a lot of things in a very different light!

i’m still chewing on the william-as-victor’s biological son interpretation (at least, if i’m interpreting what you’re saying here correctly). it’s definitely got potential but while shelley does disguise her themes frequently, for a variety of reasons, it almost seems too subtle; to me, it seems more likely that victor and caroline’s relationship was only psuedo/covertly-incestuous (with deliberately creating elizabeth as an extension of herself and dictating their marriage and having elizabeth take her role and whatnot) and that victor and elizabeth’s raising of their younger siblings was more along the lines of parentification and/or grooming them into their roles of husband/wife. the fact that caroline made elizabeth into an extension of herself, and then goes on to have elizabeth marry victor, does certainly carry implications… but if like you suggest desire is there for victor, i would say caroline attempts to act on it through elizabeth as a medium, since she cannot do so physically.

however, i do agree that the creation process can still definitely be interpreted as (subconsciously) sexual in nature, and that victor’s disgust during the creature’s awakening could very well be disgust that he is repeating the cycle of abuse—i think, because the victor-as-creature’s father interpretation is so favored, people tend to overlook the eroticism you pointed out in the creation process, even though frankenstein build-a-gf adaptations are all over the place (and despite the theme of incest being clear throughout the novel), but i’d never been able to articulate it as eloquently as you put it here. i’d be interested in how you interpret victor’s dream at ingolstadt as well, since it occurs right after the creatures birth—as oedipal in nature? victors subconscious knowledge of the jocasta complex at play? or just furthering the conflation of sister/mother?

i’d also suggest that alphonse and elizabeth’s relationship may be incestuous in a similar vein to caroline and victor’s. because caroline has elizabeth supply her role to the family, she is not only operating as a maternal substitute but also as a wife substitute to alphonse. victor’s “more than sister” line in regard to elizabeth and the possessive way he refers to her as “his” is cited often to prove that their relationship was incestuous (and typically to demonize victor but i digress), but people fail to notice that alphonse also refers to elizabeth in the same way, i.e. as his “more than daughter” (thank you to the lovely @rosaniruby for first pointing this line out to me)! the full quote is this: “…his eyes wandered in vacancy, for they had lost their charm and their delight—his niece, his more than daughter, whom he doated on with all that affection which a man feels, who, in the decline of life, having few affections, clings more earnestly to those that remain” (1818). so not only does he describe her as his more than daughter, but also acknowledges their blood relation as his more than niece, and in doing so rules out all potential familial relations: she is not just a niece, not just a daughter, but more than that. he feels “all the affection which a man feels” towards her—as in all the types of affection, familial, platonic, romantic… specifically because he has “few affections,” that is, his wife died, so he clings more earnestly to elizabeth who is operating as his wife-replacement. significantly it is also elizabeth’s death that pushes alphonse over the edge of grief and leads to his passing.

i’d love to hear your thoughts!

for my 100th post (!) i thought i would, at long last, make a catch-all analysis on victor and elizabeth’s relationship, their marriage, and why specifically it was incestuous. throughout i may mention my interpretations of caroline’s past and her pseudo-incestuous relationship with alphonse, which you can read here. it’s not necessary to understand this post, but you’ll miss some of the nuance of the relationships between the frankensteins without it

in the 1818 version of the novel, elizabeth is the paternal first cousin of victor. she is, like caroline, similarly upper-class but falls into misfortune when her mother dies and she is left under the care of her father. these parallels become important later. after elizabeth’s mother dies, her father writes to alphonse “….requesting [Alphonse] to take charge of the infant Elizabeth” and that it was his wish “…that [Alphonse] should consider her as [his] own daughter, and educate her thus” (1818). that is, it was explicitly intended for elizabeth to be reared as a daughter to the frankensteins (and thus victor’s sister). 

in the 1831 edition, caroline specifically has an interest in elizabeth because she sees herself and her own situation in her, a background that mirrors her own. i’ll directly quote a post of mine instead of reiterating the same point. essentially: from the beginning caroline deliberately sets up parallels between herself and elizabeth. she wants a daughter, and adopts elizabeth specifically because elizabeth reminds her of herself, but grander: like she was, elizabeth is also a beggar and an orphan and homeless, but her story is more tragic, she is more beautiful, her debt to her caretakers more extreme, and her romantic relationship will go on to be more explicitly incestuous. through elizabeth and victor, caroline will perpetuate her own abuse. the difference is, unlike her own, this is a situation caroline can control.

from the beginning, at six years old, victor and elizabeth are raised with the expectation that they are going to be wed when they are older. as an adult, elizabeth reflects “that our union had been the favourite plan of [their] parents ever since our infancy” and that “we were told this when young, and taught to look forward to it as an event that would certainly take place” (1831). this is because of caroline’s “desire to bind as closely as possible the ties of domestic love” (1818), and so she is raised as victor’s “more than sister” (1831). they are encouraged to play at the role of mother and father/husband and wife together via raising and educating their younger siblings, particularly ernest. ernest is described as being victor’s “principal pupil” and, during his illness in infancy, elizabeth and victor were “his constant nurses” despite caroline, alphonse and maids/servants/caretakers being available

simultaneously, caroline grooms elizabeth into being a mini-me, calling her her “favorite” and encouraging her to embody the same values as her. caroline does all she can to have elizabeth be what is, essentially, a second version of her, while all the while dictating a marriage to her son

this becomes even more significant, when, on her deathbed, caroline reinforces her wish for victor and elizabeth to marry: “My children... my firmest hopes of future happiness were placed on the prospect of your union. This expectation will now be the consolation of your father. Elizabeth, my love you must supply my place” (1831). by attempting to replace herself with elizabeth via telling her to “supply her place” (of mother/wife) to the rest of the family, caroline is not only dictating a marriage between brother and sister but now mother and son, as elizabeth shifts from a sister-figure to victor into a maternal substitute, and simultaneously is his bride-to-be. as a result the roles of mother, sister and wife become conflated in victor’s mind—to some degree, there is no one without the other.

there’s deeper things at play here too, namely that it creates victor’s later emotional obligation in honoring his mother’s dying wish to go through with the marriage (furthered because it is the “consolation” of his father… alphonse also says something to this effect after victor gets out of prison), but i have enough to say on how victor is relied on as a pillar of emotional support by all of his family that it warrants its own post

this subconscious shift between the role of sister figure to mother figure is further emphasized when, during his dream at ingolstadt after the creation of the creature, elizabeth morphs into caroline in victors arms: “I slept, indeed, but I was disturbed by the wildest dreams. I thought I saw Elizabeth…Delighted and surprised, I embraced her; but as I imprinted the first kiss on her lips, they became livid with the hue of death; her features appeared to change, and I thought that I held the corpse of my dead mother in my arms” (1831). that is, she literally changes from sister into mother. this is also the only kiss in the entire book, and the only instance victor and elizabeth display any affection for each other that is explicitly non-platonic (and elizabeth’s affections towards victor generally feel more motherly then amorous, particularly in contrast to the romance of felix and safie), and during it, she turns into victor’s mother and decays in his arms.

but why make the creature in the first place? well, as the common misconception goes, it wasn’t about reanimation (which was only mentioned once in a throwaway line) it was about creating new life. what victor wound up doing what was not reversing death, but what was, essentially, an alternate method of childbirth. this is a significant detail when considered in the context of victor and elizabeth’s relationship: victor’s goal was to create life, and he, at great lengths, intentionally circumvented women (elizabeth) in this process. why? so that he could dodge an act of incest—marrying elizabeth and providing the frankenstein heirs and carrying on the family legacy, which is what his family expected him to do.

there’s evidence to suggest elizabeth views victor as a brother. elizabeth indirectly acknowledges this relationship during justine’s trial, when she stands up for her defense: "I am," said she, "the cousin of the unhappy child who was murdered, or rather his sister, for I was educated by, and have lived with his parents ever since and even long before, his birth…” (1831). here, elizabeth calls herself the cousin of william (which is notably what she refers to victor as, both when they are literally cousins and when they have no blood relation—either way, a familial term) and then corrects herself, that she is actually william’s sister. her reasoning for this? she was raised and educated by the frankensteins alongside him ever since she was young. if you follow this logic, by extension she also considers herself ernest’s—and more relevantly—victor’s sister.

there is an egregious amount of subtext that suggests victor also views elizabeth as a sibling as well. before victor leaves for his vacation with henry, alphonse tells him that he has “always looked forward to [victor’s] marriage with [his] cousin as the tie of our domestic comfort” because they were “attached to each other from earliest infancy” and “entirely suited to one another in dispositions and tastes.” however, he acknowledges that because of this, victor may, perhaps, “regard [elizabeth] as his sister, without any wish that she might become your wife. Nay, you may have met with another whom you may love; and, considering yourself bound in honour to your cousin, this struggle may occasion the poignant misery which you appear to feel” to which victor replies: “My dear father, re-assure yourself. I love my cousin tenderly and sincerely. I never saw any woman who excited, as Elizabeth does, my warmest admiration and affection. My future hopes and prospects are entirely bound up in the expectation of our union” (1831). that is, he answers, no, he has not met any other woman he would rather marry, yet skirts around the former half of alphonse’s question and doesn’t acknowledge whether or not he views her as a sister or not.

this occurs again after victor is released from prison in ireland when, elizabeth, in a letter, does eventually ask him if he wants to back down from the marriage (this same letter features elizabeth literally hitting the nail on the head when asking if victor was going through with the marriage because he felt honor-bound to their parents). however, she poses this by asking: “But as brother and sister often entertain a lively affection towards each other, without desiring a more intimate union, may not such also be our case?...Do you not love another?” to which victor honestly answers no, he has not met any other woman. however, it’s not addressed whether he’s in love with elizabeth herself, nor does he address whether or not their affection towards each other is akin to that of siblings–again he entirely ignores it.

when victor and alphonse return to geneva after his release from prison, alphonse proposes victor’s immediate marriage to elizabeth, to which victor remains silent. alphonse then confronts victor once more: “Have you, then, some other attachment?” victor responds: “None on earth. I love Elizabeth, and look forward to our union with delight. Let the day therefore be fixed; and on it I will consecrate myself, in life or death, to the happiness of my cousin" (1831). yet the “hopes and prospects” that victor saw bound in their marriage earlier was, in fact, his own death–which was “no evil to [him]...and I therefore, with a contented and even cheerful countenance, agreed with my father, that if my cousin would consent, the ceremony should take place in ten days, and thus put, as I imagined, the seal to my fate” (1831). victor sees going through with a marriage to elizabeth as suicide, and embraces this.

they are both mutually hesitant and describe feelings of dread and melancholy on their wedding day itself. at the very least this indicates a lack of romantic interest in each other. after the ceremony, when they row out on the boat together, victor has a thought that is perhaps the most blatant example of his romantic disinterest in elizabeth: “Then gazing on the beloved face of Elizabeth, on her graceful form and languid eyes, instead of feeling the exultation of a—lover—a husband—a sudden gush of tears blinded my sight, & as I turned away to hide the involuntary emotion fast drops fell in the wave below. Reason again awoke, and shaking off all unmanly—or more properly all natural thoughts of mischance, I smiled” (Frankenstein 1823). victor also makes it clear to the narrator (walton) that they did not consummate their marriage before elizabeth’s death, which suggests there was hesitance or disgust around the concept. 

this is a neat little aside and more circumstantial evidence then anything else, but it is pretty well known that mary shelley's works tend to be somewhat autobiographical, and that her characters are influenced by people in her own life. this is most obvious in the last man, but its also present to a lesser extent in frankenstein, wherein victor's character is inspired by (among others) percy shelley. percy wrote under the pseudonym victor, which is believed to be where victor's name may have come from—and elizabeth was the name of percy shelley's sister.

peak sibling behavior

i (obviously, if you’re familiar with my account at all) don’t perceive victor’s “abandonment” of the creature as his Great Sin (which was actually the creature leaving victor’s apartment of his own volition while victor was out on a stress-induced walk), but i do think you’re demonizing the creature here a little bit in the process of defending victor.

i think calling the antagonism the creature faced “minor” is wholly underselling it: he faced straight-up violence. he was turned loose with no direction nor knowledge of himself or anything around, in a world without a single being like him, and then was shot, beaten, and/or verbally assaulted any time he faced a person. he was met time and time again with violence or malice or fear by those around him. this is undeniable. you also seem to imply the creature’s tendency to respond to antagonism with aggression was somehow innate, which it definitely wasn’t—in the creature’s early chapters shelley devotes a lot of time to establishing just that, i.e. that creature was not born violent but warped that way by the society that rejected him. the creature outlines this clearly: “My heart was fashioned to be susceptible of love and sympathy; and, when wrenched by misery to vice and hatred, it did not endure the violence of the change without torture” (1831). this transition from love and sympathy to vice and hatred is what his whole arc with the delaceys is about. 

of course, that in no way justifies the actions he chose to take, which to me have always been inexcusable regardless of the extreme circumstances that culminated in those decisions, but we still shouldn’t undermine the fact that there WERE extreme circumstances. in doing so you lose a lot of the thematic significance and commentary regarding society.

where creature’s fault lies, to me, is that he cultivated an understanding of society and its evils and of morality and empathy and of right from wrong. he feels this inherently: “For a long time I could not conceive how one man could go forth to murder his fellow… when I heard details of vice and bloodshed I turned away with disgust and loathing” (1831). but despite this, he CHOOSES revenge, on the delaceys, on victor, on the world as a whole, actively turning away from his own morality, his innate humanity and sense of goodness. he consciously chooses violence and revenge instead, while knowing and more importantly FEELING, to the extent that he abhors himself, that it was a moral wrong. he would be a lot less powerful of a narrator and as a character if his propensity to react with violence was somehow innate rather than the internal struggle and gray morality that we get in the novel.

but without that external factor (repeated negative interaction with society), he wouldn’t have actually developed this fatal flaw at all, because it was what eventually caused his knee-jerk violent response in the first place. that’s not to say i think any sort of hypothetical victor-raises-creature scenario could have been successful, it just may have been less violent—but victor was physically and mentally incapable of rearing a child at the time, and even disregarding that fact, there are so many other factors on why it wouldn’t have worked, including that, like you said, victor alone could not have satisfied the creature’s needs for company, because his need for romantic and sexual intimacy with another being like him would still exist. ultimately there was no chance for a good outcome for either of them, and this is why frankenstein makes such a good tragedy!

there's something that doesn't really get talked about a lot in the critiques of victor's actions in frankenstein, which is that even if victor hadn't committed what a lot of people view as his Great Sin, abandoning the creature, it still wouldn't have solved anything. the creature's main grievances beyond being angry at victor for his abandonment are that he's hideous and therefore everyone will hate him, and that he's alone in his entire species and therefore has no girlfriend. and while some of that can be mitigated by victor's involvement, victor being present isn't gonna stop other people from thinking that the creature is butt-ugly, nor is it gonna deal with any desire he might have for romantic or sexual intimacy with someone he shares common traits with. and it is also crucially not going to curb the creature's tendency within his personality to respond to every minor antagonism with violent aggression that oftentimes culminates in the straight up murder of innocent people. that's his fatal flaw and it doesn't go away just because there's no external factor involved anymore. victor could be a father figure to the creature from day one and there could still be one person who calls him an ugly abomination at the wrong moment, or victor could say he's not making another experiment for whatever reason, and then boom! we arrive once again at the child killing and the framing family friends for it and the boyfriend killing and the wife killing as the situation escalates, because one of the reasons the book goes the way it does is that the creature himself cannot get out of his own fucking way and makes the situation infinitely worse to the point where mutual destruction is both his and victor's only way out.

for my 100th post (!) i thought i would, at long last, make a catch-all analysis on victor and elizabeth’s relationship, their marriage, and why specifically it was incestuous. throughout i may mention my interpretations of caroline’s past and her pseudo-incestuous relationship with alphonse, which you can read here. it’s not necessary to understand this post, but you’ll miss some of the nuance of the relationships between the frankensteins without it

in the 1818 version of the novel, elizabeth is the paternal first cousin of victor. she is, like caroline, similarly upper-class but falls into misfortune when her mother dies and she is left under the care of her father. these parallels become important later. after elizabeth’s mother dies, her father writes to alphonse “….requesting [Alphonse] to take charge of the infant Elizabeth” and that it was his wish “…that [Alphonse] should consider her as [his] own daughter, and educate her thus” (1818). that is, it was explicitly intended for elizabeth to be reared as a daughter to the frankensteins (and thus victor’s sister). 

in the 1831 edition, caroline specifically has an interest in elizabeth because she sees herself and her own situation in her, a background that mirrors her own. i’ll directly quote a post of mine instead of reiterating the same point. essentially: from the beginning caroline deliberately sets up parallels between herself and elizabeth. she wants a daughter, and adopts elizabeth specifically because elizabeth reminds her of herself, but grander: like she was, elizabeth is also a beggar and an orphan and homeless, but her story is more tragic, she is more beautiful, her debt to her caretakers more extreme, and her romantic relationship will go on to be more explicitly incestuous. through elizabeth and victor, caroline will perpetuate her own abuse. the difference is, unlike her own, this is a situation caroline can control.

from the beginning, at six years old, victor and elizabeth are raised with the expectation that they are going to be wed when they are older. as an adult, elizabeth reflects “that our union had been the favourite plan of [their] parents ever since our infancy” and that “we were told this when young, and taught to look forward to it as an event that would certainly take place” (1831). this is because of caroline’s “desire to bind as closely as possible the ties of domestic love” (1818), and so she is raised as victor’s “more than sister” (1831). they are encouraged to play at the role of mother and father/husband and wife together via raising and educating their younger siblings, particularly ernest. ernest is described as being victor’s “principal pupil” and, during his illness in infancy, elizabeth and victor were “his constant nurses” despite caroline, alphonse and maids/servants/caretakers being available

simultaneously, caroline grooms elizabeth into being a mini-me, calling her her “favorite” and encouraging her to embody the same values as her. caroline does all she can to have elizabeth be what is, essentially, a second version of her, while all the while dictating a marriage to her son

this becomes even more significant, when, on her deathbed, caroline reinforces her wish for victor and elizabeth to marry: “My children... my firmest hopes of future happiness were placed on the prospect of your union. This expectation will now be the consolation of your father. Elizabeth, my love you must supply my place” (1831). by attempting to replace herself with elizabeth via telling her to “supply her place” (of mother/wife) to the rest of the family, caroline is not only dictating a marriage between brother and sister but now mother and son, as elizabeth shifts from a sister-figure to victor into a maternal substitute, and simultaneously is his bride-to-be. as a result the roles of mother, sister and wife become conflated in victor’s mind—to some degree, there is no one without the other.

there’s deeper things at play here too, namely that it creates victor’s later emotional obligation in honoring his mother’s dying wish to go through with the marriage (furthered because it is the “consolation” of his father… alphonse also says something to this effect after victor gets out of prison), but i have enough to say on how victor is relied on as a pillar of emotional support by all of his family that it warrants its own post

this subconscious shift between the role of sister figure to mother figure is further emphasized when, during his dream at ingolstadt after the creation of the creature, elizabeth morphs into caroline in victors arms: “I slept, indeed, but I was disturbed by the wildest dreams. I thought I saw Elizabeth…Delighted and surprised, I embraced her; but as I imprinted the first kiss on her lips, they became livid with the hue of death; her features appeared to change, and I thought that I held the corpse of my dead mother in my arms” (1831). that is, she literally changes from sister into mother. this is also the only kiss in the entire book, and the only instance victor and elizabeth display any affection for each other that is explicitly non-platonic (and elizabeth’s affections towards victor generally feel more motherly then amorous, particularly in contrast to the romance of felix and safie), and during it, she turns into victor’s mother and decays in his arms.

but why make the creature in the first place? well, as the common misconception goes, it wasn’t about reanimation (which was only mentioned once in a throwaway line) it was about creating new life. what victor wound up doing what was not reversing death, but what was, essentially, an alternate method of childbirth. this is a significant detail when considered in the context of victor and elizabeth’s relationship: victor’s goal was to create life, and he, at great lengths, intentionally circumvented women (elizabeth) in this process. why? so that he could dodge an act of incest—marrying elizabeth and providing the frankenstein heirs and carrying on the family legacy, which is what his family expected him to do.

there’s evidence to suggest elizabeth views victor as a brother. elizabeth indirectly acknowledges this relationship during justine’s trial, when she stands up for her defense: "I am," said she, "the cousin of the unhappy child who was murdered, or rather his sister, for I was educated by, and have lived with his parents ever since and even long before, his birth…” (1831). here, elizabeth calls herself the cousin of william (which is notably what she refers to victor as, both when they are literally cousins and when they have no blood relation—either way, a familial term) and then corrects herself, that she is actually william’s sister. her reasoning for this? she was raised and educated by the frankensteins alongside him ever since she was young. if you follow this logic, by extension she also considers herself ernest’s—and more relevantly—victor’s sister.

there is an egregious amount of subtext that suggests victor also views elizabeth as a sibling as well. before victor leaves for his vacation with henry, alphonse tells him that he has “always looked forward to [victor’s] marriage with [his] cousin as the tie of our domestic comfort” because they were “attached to each other from earliest infancy” and “entirely suited to one another in dispositions and tastes.” however, he acknowledges that because of this, victor may, perhaps, “regard [elizabeth] as his sister, without any wish that she might become your wife. Nay, you may have met with another whom you may love; and, considering yourself bound in honour to your cousin, this struggle may occasion the poignant misery which you appear to feel” to which victor replies: “My dear father, re-assure yourself. I love my cousin tenderly and sincerely. I never saw any woman who excited, as Elizabeth does, my warmest admiration and affection. My future hopes and prospects are entirely bound up in the expectation of our union” (1831). that is, he answers, no, he has not met any other woman he would rather marry, yet skirts around the former half of alphonse’s question and doesn’t acknowledge whether or not he views her as a sister or not.

this occurs again after victor is released from prison in ireland when, elizabeth, in a letter, does eventually ask him if he wants to back down from the marriage (this same letter features elizabeth literally hitting the nail on the head when asking if victor was going through with the marriage because he felt honor-bound to their parents). however, she poses this by asking: “But as brother and sister often entertain a lively affection towards each other, without desiring a more intimate union, may not such also be our case?...Do you not love another?” to which victor honestly answers no, he has not met any other woman. however, it’s not addressed whether he’s in love with elizabeth herself, nor does he address whether or not their affection towards each other is akin to that of siblings–again he entirely ignores it.

when victor and alphonse return to geneva after his release from prison, alphonse proposes victor’s immediate marriage to elizabeth, to which victor remains silent. alphonse then confronts victor once more: “Have you, then, some other attachment?” victor responds: “None on earth. I love Elizabeth, and look forward to our union with delight. Let the day therefore be fixed; and on it I will consecrate myself, in life or death, to the happiness of my cousin" (1831). yet the “hopes and prospects” that victor saw bound in their marriage earlier was, in fact, his own death–which was “no evil to [him]...and I therefore, with a contented and even cheerful countenance, agreed with my father, that if my cousin would consent, the ceremony should take place in ten days, and thus put, as I imagined, the seal to my fate” (1831). victor sees going through with a marriage to elizabeth as suicide, and embraces this.

they are both mutually hesitant and describe feelings of dread and melancholy on their wedding day itself. at the very least this indicates a lack of romantic interest in each other. after the ceremony, when they row out on the boat together, victor has a thought that is perhaps the most blatant example of his romantic disinterest in elizabeth: “Then gazing on the beloved face of Elizabeth, on her graceful form and languid eyes, instead of feeling the exultation of a—lover—a husband—a sudden gush of tears blinded my sight, & as I turned away to hide the involuntary emotion fast drops fell in the wave below. Reason again awoke, and shaking off all unmanly—or more properly all natural thoughts of mischance, I smiled” (Frankenstein 1823). victor also makes it clear to the narrator (walton) that they did not consummate their marriage before elizabeth’s death, which suggests there was hesitance or disgust around the concept. 

this is a neat little aside and more circumstantial evidence then anything else, but it is pretty well known that mary shelley's works tend to be somewhat autobiographical, and that her characters are influenced by people in her own life. this is most obvious in the last man, but its also present to a lesser extent in frankenstein, wherein victor's character is inspired by (among others) percy shelley. percy wrote under the pseudonym victor, which is believed to be where victor's name may have come from—and elizabeth was the name of percy shelley's sister.

for some reason people seem to think that mary somehow stumbled into writing a commentary on marriage/incest accidentally, and that the themes of frankenstein are all about her trauma due to her experiences as a victim of the patriarchy, as a woman and a mother surrounded by men - as if she wasnt the child of radical liberals who publicly renounced marriage, as if she herself as well as percy shelley had similar politics on marriage, as if she would not go on to write a novel where the central theme is explicitly that of father/daughter incest years later…

the most obvious and frequent critique of victor i see is of his attempt to create life - the creature - without female presence. it’s taught in schools, wrote about by academics, talked about in fandom spaces - mary shelley was a feminist who wrote about feminism by making victor a misogynist. he’s misogynistic because he invented a method of procreation without involving women purely out of male entitlement and masculine arrogance and superiority, and shelley demonstrates the consequences of subverting women in the creation process/and by extension the patriarchy because this method fails terribly - his son in a monster, and victor is punished for his arrogance via the murder of his entire family; thus there is no place for procreation without the presence of women, right?

while this interpretation – though far from my favorite – is not without merit, i see it thrown around as The interpretation, which i feel does a great disservice to the other themes surrounding victor, the creature, the relationship between mother and child, parenthood, marriage, etc.

this argument also, ironically, tends to undermine the agency and power of frankenstein’s female characters, because it often relies on interpreting them as being solely passive, demure archetypes to establish their distinction from the 3 male narrators, who in contrast are performing violent and/or reprehensible actions while all the woman stay home (i.e., shelley paradoxically critiques the patriarchy by making all her female characters the reductive stereotypes that were enforced during her time period, so the flaws of our male narrators arise due to this social inequality).

in doing so it completely strips elizabeth (and caroline and justine to a lesser extent) of the power of the actions that she DID take — standing up in front of a corrupt court, speaking against the injustice of the system and attempting to fight against its verdict, lamenting the state of female social status that prevented her from visiting victor at ingolstadt, subverting traditional gender roles by offering victor an out to their arranged marriage as opposed to the other way around, taking part in determining ernest’s career and education in direct opposition to alphonse, etc. it also comes off as a very “i could fix him,” vibe, that is, it suggests if women were given equal social standing to men then elizabeth would have been able to rein victor in so to speak and prevent the events of the book from happening. which is a demeaning expectation/obligation in of itself and only reinforces the reductive passive, motherly archetypes that these same people are speaking against

it is also not very well supported: most of the argument rests on ignoring female character’s actual characterization and focusing one specific quote, often taken out of context (“a new species would bless me as its creator and source…no father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as i should deserve theirs”) which “proves” victor’s sense of male superiority, and on victors treatment/perception of elizabeth, primarily from a line of thinking he had at five years old, where he objectified her by thinking of her (or rather — being told so by caroline) as a gift to him. again, the morality of victor’s character is being determined by thoughts he had at five years old.

obviously this is not at all to say i think their relationship was a healthy one - i dont think victor and elizabeth’s marriage was ever intended to be perceived as good, but more importantly, writing their relationship this way was a deliberate critique of marriage culture.

my intended response to this was never “caroline and alphonse fucked up as parents and therefore THEYRE the evil ones and to blame”—analysis is not about figuring out who the bad-est person is so you can disavow them and who the good-est person is so you can root for them. frankenstein is a complex story that deals with a lot of commentary on society and morality and the cycle of abuse. people are a reflection of their world, their life experiences and trauma, and caroline and alphonse are no exception. while caroline perpetuated her own abuse and trauma through victor and elizabeth, and its significant that victor made the (unconscious) choice to break this generational cycle of abuse, her origin story is still one where she was victimized herself, both by alphonse and by the society that failed her and her father as a whole. we also have to remember frankenstein was written in the past when people believed and acted in ways we would consider problematic now. the characters morality should be judged based on a reflection of that time period, not based wholly through a modern lens. in some ways (particularly through their method of educating their children, but also victor’s ideas on female autonomy) the frankensteins would have been considered rather radical, because parts of the book reflect mary shelley’s beliefs, who was a radical feminist herself. this isnt at all to say i absolve alphonse and caroline (or even victor, to a lesser extent) of blame for the mistakes they made in their parenting: rather, it’s a calling to consider the nuances of the book and the complexities of ALL of its characters instead of boiling them down to black-and-white good-versus-evil.

i’ve seen the “monsters aren’t born they’re created” line of reasoning applied quite a few times in defense of the creature, wherein creature was inherently good-hearted but turned into a monster via victor’s “abandonment” and his subsequent abusive treatment by other humans, but this logic is so scarcely applied to victor. victor, to me, is often sympathetic for the same reasons as the creature, it’s just those reasons are not as blatantly obvious and require reading in-between the lines of victor’s narration a bit more. most “victor was evil and bad” or even some “victor was unsympathetic” arguments tend to fall through when you flip the same premise onto victor: if monsters are created, than who created victor frankenstein?

i’ve seen the “monsters aren’t born they’re created” line of reasoning applied quite a few times in defense of the creature, wherein creature was inherently good-hearted but turned into a monster via victor’s “abandonment” and his subsequent abusive treatment by other humans, but this logic is so scarcely applied to victor. victor, to me, is often sympathetic for the same reasons as the creature, it’s just those reasons are not as blatantly obvious and require reading in-between the lines of victor’s narration a bit more. most “victor was evil and bad” or even some “victor was unsympathetic” arguments tend to fall through when you flip the same premise onto victor: if monsters are created, than who created victor frankenstein?

ok but walton if you look at the letters in the beginning, while i wouldnt go so far as to say he's a neglected child (we dont get nearly enough insight into his background to make those kind of assumptions) his parents were definitely, at the very least, not very present in walton's life or influential to him growing up. from my memory his mother is literally never mentioned, and the sole mentions of his father are fleeting. simply: 1) he didnt support waltons childhood dreams and interests in sailing and expeditions/discovery 2) he died, leaving walton an orphan to be raised by his older sister margaret 3) his fathers literal dying wish was for walton to never be a mariner. so while i am in no way suggesting his childhood was near as bad as the creature's, or even victor's, i think its incorrect to suggest that walton was completely blind and ignorant to neglect and parental conflict

"victor's creature would kinda be justified in not feeling bad" but he DID feel bad and therein, to me, is where his fault lies. i feel as if the creature would have felt no empathy, no care at all for victor or those lives he was taking, then i would actually blame him for his actions less -- because what creature did was murder innocent people, and destroy victors life, all while understanding and FEELING that it was bad. he did it anyways, while actively going against his own morality

creature "doesnt really like humans and kills them" is incorrect, his reason for killing them was NEVER because he didnt like them, its because he chose to murder for revenge while simultaneously wishing he could be part of the humanity he was destroying, which is why he was so distraught and upset when he was ostracized and met with their fear and hatred every time. because he LIKED THEM, he in his sort of parasocial way LOVED them and wanted to be loved and accepted by them

and walton sees this! which is what his whole speech and their interaction at the end is about! he sees the creatures humanity, he knows creatures life stories and feels for his misfortunes and is moved by his words and expressions of sadness, and even sympathizes with him in a way literally no one else in the book does, yet he also recognizes that creature actively chose to turn away from his innate humanity and goodness and consciously choose violence and revenge instead, while knowing and feeling what he was doing was wrong, and That is why walton condemns creature

"do you think he had enough for a conscience for morality when he was neglected by his own fucking creator???" this line is just funny to me. Because thats. Thats the point of the whole book. That he had a conscience for morality despite his horrific situation

im not going to get into the whole victor-abandoned-creature and the bride-situation because ive talked about it a Lot in the past and this post is already too long. sorry for dumping this all on you months after you made this post its all for the sake of literary analysis and walton is my babygirl i had to jump to his defense 🙏 🙏

walton = big dumb stupid head

it is so weird to me that despite hearing the same tale from victor that we have, when walton hears of victor's creature wailing over victor's death he's basically like:

"erm actually maybe if you listened to your concisnece nothing would have happened l + ratio + bozo!!"

like c'monnNn walton,, do you think he had enough for a conscience for morality when he was neglected by his own fucking creator??? and even then tbh victor's creature would kinda be justified in not feeling bad since again victor ran immediately and has been very against giving his creation a second chance, permanently at least with his bride and all.

and its like gee maybe the guy who lived on his own forever and who humans treated HORRIBLY doesn't really like humans and kills them? :0 woaaa walton crazy shit right there. Idk i just-like i like victor and all but c'mon man you don't neglect ur kid but if u do don't be surprised at the consequences and walton, walton just shut the fuck up

found this in my google docs