Frankenstein and the Monster of Representation

Author(s): Daniel Cottom

Source: SubStance, Vol. 9, No. 3, Issue 28 (1980), pp. 60-71
Published by: University of Wisconsin Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3683905
Accessed: 24-11-2015 16:28 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to SubStance.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:28:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and theMonsterofRepresentation
Frankenstein

DANIEL COTTOM

... to go according to nature is only to go according to our

intelligence,as faras itcan followand as faras we can see; what
is beyond is monstrousand disordered.
Now by thisreckoning,to the mostknowingand ablestmen
everythingwill thereforebe monstrous....
Montaigne'

As Mary Shelley indicated when she described thisnovel as her "hideous

progeny" (10)2, the monstercreated in Frankenstein is a likenessof the novel
itself.The similarityis so strong,in fact,thatthe figureVictorFrankenstein
brings to life may be said to representthe novel in which both he and that
figure appear. Thus, the horrorthatFrankensteinfeelsin contemplatingthe
monstercan also be the reactionof a reader who findsthe letterson a page to
lose theirmeaning as theylose theirground in a referentialdepth and order.
This analogy is supported by the way in which the experience of reading is
dramatized elsewherein thiswork.Frankenstein'svisionof the monsteragrees
with that discordant vision of man which is given through a reading of
Volney's Ruins ofEmpires.Summingup his reactionto thatbook, the monster
says, "Was man, indeed, at once so powerful,so virtuous,and magnificent, yet
so vicious and base?" (119).
in seekingto representhimself,man
For thisis the parable of Frankenstein:
makes himselfa monster.Or, to put it in otherwords: Frankenstein'smonster
images the monstrousnatureof representation.Victor,then,maydeliberately
choose the monster's"giganticstature"(54) as a mechanicalexpedient in his
work; but when thatworkis completed,itcomes to have a significancebeyond
the pragmatic. As Victor says, "How can I describe my emotions at this
catastrophe,or how delineate the wretchwhom withsuch infinitepains I had
endeavoured to form?" (57). The size of the monster magnifiesa faulty
relationshipbetweenthe inside and the outside of his body as well as a lack of
harmonyon the surfaceof his body. His featuresare relatedto each otherby
a contiguitywithoutany substantialground,fortheyeithercontrasttoo much
or too littleand are not even distinguishableas external featuresfromthe
muscles and arteriesthatalso appear on the surface.As itis representedin the
monster,the human body thatLocke called "thegreatfoundationof property"3

Sub-Stance N0 28, 1980 60

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:28:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Frankenstein 61

is seen as having no depth and no coherenceto preserveitas a foundationfor

anything.
This physicalmonstrosity of Frankenstein'screatureis relatedto problems
in the representationof man as a species, a social figure,an individual,a
creature of reason, and a being in the contexts of science and political
economy. The human species appears in Volney'srepresentationto be no less
incoherent than the appearance of the monster.It is as if Victorsees in his
creation the breakdown of the concept of man into an irreconcilablediversity
of individuals or of qualities within individuals-a breakdown that leaves
representation as a groundless, disordered, monstrous affair. With the
creation of the monster, one no longer has that unity in diversitywhich
characterized the early relationshipbetween Victor and Elizabeth,his adop-
ted cousin: "Harmony was the soul of our companionship,and the diversity
and contrastthat subsistedin our charactersdrew us nearer together"(36).
Instead, one may be reminded of the way in which Vico illustratedthe
generation of poetic monstersby a failureof representationin Roman law-
an "inabilityto abstractformsor propertiesfromsubjects."4This inabilityto
rise fromdisordered particularsto an organizingconcept,fromindividualsor
qualities withinindividualsto the species,describesperfectlyone aspectof the
representationalcrisisthatproduces Frankenstein'smonsterand the novel of
which he is the image.
A furtheraspect may be related to Rousseau's suggestionthatthe idea of
gigantismsignifiesa distortionof perceptioncaused by man's fearof others.5
Not only is thisanalysisrelevantto Frankenstein'screation,but theconstitution
of thisfear in Frankenstein can be expressed more precisely.One area in which
gigantism and fear are related is a child's perception of the coincidence
between his parents' physicalandlmoral authority,and thisthematicconjunc-
tion is crucial throughoutthe novel. It is not just confusionamong human
relationshipsin general that gives rise to monstrosity but also the confusion
that specificallyarises in familialand sexual relationships.
Consider the relationshipbetween Victor and the girl who eventually
(though verybriefly)becomes his wife.As a child,Victoris givena "present"
by his mother: the orphan Elizabethwho becomes his "more than sister"(35)
as he grows up. Their lifetogetheris idyllicuntilVictoris about to go to the
Universityat Ingolstadt. At that time his mother,who is attemptingto cure
Elizabeth of scarlet fever,succeeds in the cure but herselfcatches the fever
fromElizabeth and thendies, saying,"Elizabeth,mylove,you mustsupplymy
place to my younger children"(43). The illnessthus passed betweenthe two
women is the physical expression of a psychologicalconfusion among the
identitiesof "mother,""sister,"and "wife"thatpersiststhroughoutFranken-
stein's story and forms the dramatic basis for his relationship with his
monster.There is a conflictbetweenfamilialand sexual ordersthatcannotbe
resolved in this novel except through illness, violence, or death. This
contagion is caused, in effect,by the problem of fittingindividualsto more
general concepts withinthe process of representation.

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:28:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 Daniel Cottom

The naivete of dreams provides the traditionalnarrativeexcuse for the

expression of such threateningambiguitiesin identity;and when he finally
manages to fall asleep on the nightafterhe animateshis creation,Victorhas
just such a dream:
I thoughtI saw Elizabeth,in the bloomof health,walkingin the streetsof
I embracedher;butas I imprinted
Ingolstadt.Delightedand surprised, thefirst
kisson herlips,theybecamelividwiththehueofdeath;herfeatures appearedto
change,and I thoughtthatI heldthecorpseof mydead motherin myarms;a
shroudenvelopedherform,and I sawthegraveworms crawling in thefoldsof
the flannel.I startedfrommy sleep withhorror;a cold dew coveredmy
forehead,myteethchattered, and everylimbbecameconvulsed;when,bythe
dim and yellowlightof the moon,as it forcedits waythroughthe window
I beheldthewretch-themiserable
shutters, monsterwhomI had created.(58).

If it is remembered that Victor has meditatedearlier," ... if I could bestow

animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time.., .renew life
where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption" (54), the
significanceof thisdream becomes even clearer.The monsterappears as the
figure concluding a series of substitutions-wifefor sisterfor mother-that
doesn't end even when Elizabeth is murdered on her wedding night,but
extends to figuresthroughoutthe novel. Incest,PercyByssheShelley's"very
poetical circumstance,"6is what is symbolicallyperformedin Victor'sact of
creation and then elaborated and analyzed in the drama subsequent to that
act. The monster not only displays the relationshipbetween Victor and
Elizabeth in its own discordantimage but also acts as the parentalscourge of
that forbidden relationship to which Victor's mother had so discordantly
given her blessing.The contagionthatpasses betweenthe twowomenmarksa
breakdown in representational orders which leads to the confusion of
identities driftingamong differentindividuals rather than adhering to a
specific figure.
The contagion spreads, then, to the Frankenstein'sservant,Justine
Moritz, who had so admired Mrs. Frankensteinthat she had tried and
succeeded in imitatingher appearance.7 She is convicted of murdering
Victor'sbrotherbecause the monster,the actual killer,hides in her belongings
the picture Elizabeth had given to the boy-a picture of his mother. The
contagion also may be seen as spreadingto the De Laceys,the cottagerswhom
the monster secretlyobserves and learns to love. They resemble Elizabeth's
parents as theyare nobles embroiled in politicalconflict,and theyresemble
both Elizabeth's parents and those of Victor'smotheras theywere rich but
have become poor; and thus,throughthe contagionthatcomes withconfused
resemblances, the De Laceys are connected to the incestuous design that
Victor sees displayed across the form of his creation. When the monster
finallyreveals himselfto them,theymustrejecthimjust as Victormustreject
that power which revealed its perversityin his creation.
Finally,the contagionspreads to Victor'smeetingwithRobertWalton,the

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:28:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Frankenstein 63

explorer of the North Pole whom he meets as he tries to chase down the
creation which has run out of his control. In the lettersto his sisterwhich
compose the narrativeof Frankenstein, Walton seems to anticipatehis meeting
with Victor as he complains about the lack of a friend-"a man," as he says,
"who could sympathisewithme; whose eyes would replyto mine" (19). When
he meets Victor,however,the response he receivesto his friendlyoverturesis
not the one he had expected. Victor'sresponseis thecautionarytaleof hislife.
The lesson it conveys is that "the absence" (19) Walton yearns to fill is
congruent withthe unknown land he seeks to conquer, and thatthisabsence
is thepresenceof hissister.The majorironyof thisnovelis thatitsformas a
brother's communication with his sister and its dramatic setting in an
exploratory voyage to an uncharted region of the world are euphemistic
parodies of the forbiddenact so centralto itshorror.This complementarity
in
the formof the noveland the sexualtransgression by Victor's
represented
creation extends stillfurtherthe significanceof themonsteras a figureforthe
text.
Moreover, Victor describesWalton as having "restored[him]to life"(26)
just as he later describes his restorationat the hands of his boyhood friend,
Henry Clerval.8 In their revivifications of Victor,Walton and Clerval both
resemble him in his monstrouscreativity.This confluencein theiridentities
leads the one to the failureof his scientificexpeditionand the otherto death
as a surrogate for Frankenstein.Once again, then, one sees a contagion
arising out of imperfectlydifferentiatedand ordered identities.
The importance of his last comparison is even more evident when one
considers the fact that a kind of kinship is, after all, the relationshipthat
finallyobtainsbetweenVictorand his monster.That thisis so is evidentin the
pattern of reversals in their relationship to each other: their kinship is
established through the confusionin theirroles. Frankenstein,for instance,
comes to speak of himselfas "the slave of my creature"(153); and while the
monster says at one point,"You are mycreator,but I am yourmaster"(167),
he later claims, "I was the slave, not the master,of an impulse, which I
detested, yet could not disobey" (220). This ambiguityas to who is subjectto
whom is continuous withVictor'slife afterthe creationof his monsterand is
irresoluble as long as they both continue to live-there can be no recon-
ciliation. Victor cannot recognize his kinship (or twinship)to his monster
because to do so would be to lose his identityin the chaos imaged in the
monster'sappearance. In other words,he would no longerbe able to use his
view of the monsteras a means displacinghis own monstrosity. Thus, he
can only recognize himselfin the ,of
monsterin a demonic form:"I considered
the being whom I had cast among mankind ... nearlyin the lightof myown
vampire, myown spiritlet loose fromthe grave,and forcedto destroyall that
was dear to me" (77).
One has only to consider Victor's misinterpretationof the monster's
promise to be withhim on his wedding nightas referringto violenceagainst
himselfratherthan againsthis wifeto see how the monster'sviolenceappears

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:28:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64 Daniel Cottom

as a displacementof impulsesthatmaybe presumed to be Victor's.9Similarly,

Victor's convictionthat he is a criminaland his delerious statementsthathe
has killed his brother,Elizabeth,and Henry Clerval are but barelydisguised
avowals of the identityof his desires and his monster'sactions. (The "brain
fever" fromwhich he suffersis, afterall, but another literaryversionof the
dream.) The monsterin thisrespectmaybe seen as representinga release of
the force of repression over violent and irrationalenergies that belong to
Victor as theydo to all of mankindin thisnovel,10and thus he is a figurefor
the novel as a whole insofaras the apparent order of this narrativemay be
seen as a kind of superficialcoveringto another design whichis contraryto
the usual order of reason and reading. Like the formalorder of the narrative,
the monster may be seen as a denial through displacementof a repressed
disorder that upsets the traditionalidea of representation.
Still, the nature of representationmeets with furtherand even more
important complications in this novel. For in addition to upsetting the
exemplary coherence of the body, the concept of man as a species, the
foundation of society in the family,individual identity,and the rule of
consciousness in the individual,the monsteroverturnsthe power of science.
This further aspect of the monster's power is especially emphasized
because Victor initiallytries and fails to fulfillhis ambitionsby studying
alchemy. It is only withhis introductionto modern science thathe is able to
discover this secret that he will ever after tryto repress, and this crucial
difference between alchemy and modern science comes about through a
change in the process of representation.
When the firstteacherhe meetsat the university dismissesalchemy,Victor
remains unimpressed.He is unwillingto accepta sciencethatrequireshim "to
exchange chimerasof boundless grandeurforrealitiesof littleworth."Under
the influence of a speech by a second professor,however,he findsa way of
reconcilinggrandeur withreality.This professor,M. Waldman,concludesby
saying,
The ancientteachersof thisscience..,.promisedimpossibilites, and per-
formednothing.The modernmasterspromiseverylittle;theyknowthatmetals
cannot be transmuted, and that the elixerof life is a chimera.But these
.have indeed performedmiracles.They penetrateinto the
philosophers..,
recessesof nature,and showhowshe worksin herhidingplaces.They... can
commandthe thundersof heaven,mimictheearthquake, and evenmockthe
invisibleworldwithitsownshadows.(46-48)

Whereas the language of alchemyis worthlessbecause itonlyhas referenceto

dreams, the language of science is effectiveand becomes trulymiraculous
because it imitatesnature so as to "mock the invisibleworld with its own
shadows." The words "command" and "mimic"become virtuallysynonymous
because the power of science is to forego searches for magic substancesor
substantialconversionsin favorof the artificialimitationof naturalprocesses.
In the workof empiricalexperimentand observation,natureis penetrated

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:28:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Frankenstein 65

by neutral equipment rather than by the desiring imagination.The new

language of science,in otherwords,is the language of tools. It is a mechanical
objectivitythat mediates between man and nature, making man invisiblein
the midstof his own activityso thatwhatwas hithertoinvisiblein naturemay
be revealed. What Frankensteindiscovers,however,is thatthisnew language
is also a product of the human imagination.Like Victor'screation and like
Walton's exploration and correspondence, modern science in general is a
representationof desire, not of knowledge.Science only servesto hide from
man the factthatit is himselfthathe continuallyrediscoversin natureand in
the tools he interposesbetween himselfand nature.
It is because man cannot escape intoobjectivitythroughsciencethatscien-
tificinstrumentsbecome symbolsof violentdisorderin Frankenstein. They are
not only the means of creatingthe monsterbut counterpartsto the monster.
Of course,such instruments are introducedinnocently
enough,as themachines
in his lab are what M. Waldman firstshowsto Victorafterhe has accepted him
as his pupil. And it is "the improvementof some chemicalinstruments"(51)
that formallymarks the point at which Victor has outstrippedhis teachers.
Afterthe creation of the monsterby means of "the instrumentsof life"(57),
however, Victor says, "When I was otherwisequite restored to health, the
sight of a chemical instrumentwould renew all the agony of my nervous
symptoms"(67). And when, afterhis illness,he introducesthe newly-arrived
Henry Clerval to M. Waldman and that well-meaingprofessor speaks of
science to the twoof them,Victor'sreactionis similar."I felt,"he says,"as ifhe
had placed carefully,one by one, in myviewthose instruments whichwere to
be afterwardsused in puttingme to a slow and cruel death" (68). At thispoint,
not only has the horrorof scientificinstrumentsbeen transferredto language
concerned with science, but there has been a complete conflationin the
identityof the instrumentsof creationand the monsterhimself.
The language of science, the tools of science,and the productof science
are all as one because, as Victorregardsthem,all are representationsof man
as somethingother than himself.That is to say, theyare representationsof
man as a representation-as a victimof instrumentsforeign to himself.
Instruments,whetherlinguisticor mechanicalor monstrous,representman
to himself through his own death; and thus it is not surprisingthat Victor
should look back upon the words withwhich M. Waldman had firstinspired
him as "the words of fate,enounced to destroyme" (48) and should speak of
"the evil influence,the Angel of Destruction"(45) that led him to the first
professor of science at Ingolstadt. Since the power of scientificlanguage,
instruments,and creation comes froma nature outside of man, beyond the
desires of man, all aspects of scientificrepresentationcome to be seen by
Victor as havingtheiroriginand theirend in death. The pursuitof objectivity,
it seems, can only be a pursuitengendered by and culminatingin death,forit
is only in death that the disordered associationsof life can be completely
harmonized.
The implicationof Frankenstein'screationand of Walton's failureis that

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:28:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66 Daniel Cottom

every language which pretends to objectivitymust be founded upon victim-

ization and sacrifice.It is significantin thisrespectthatwhile Walton at first
describes his motives for exploration to his sisterin termsof personal cur-
iosities,fantasies,and desires, his finaland over-ridingmotiveis selflessand
scientificand sacrificial:"you cannot contestthe inestimablebenefitwhich I
shall confer on all mankind to the last generation... " (16).
The differencebetween science and alchemy,then, the differencethat
makes Victor'smonsterso terriblypowerful,is thatsciencein actualityrejects
desire, and thus rejectsa part of man, and thus ends in representingman to
himselfin a hideous and violentform.All power,whetheritbe over natureor
over society,representsa monstrousmisrepresentation of desire. Seen from
this point of view, the monsteris a figurefor the novel insofaras the novel
may be taken as something other than a dream and thus as an objective
language withinwhich there is concealed a deathlypower over the reader.
The idea of invisibility that looms so large in this scientificenterpriseis
particularlystriking in a novel thathas itsoriginsin Byron'ssuggestionthathe
and his friendsshould write"a ghoststory"(7). Moreover,invisibility appears
elsewhere in the novel, showing another way in which representationis a
monstrous affair. When the monster was hiding in a shed behind the De
Laceys' home, he wentout at nightto gatherwood and to do otherchores for
that family; and he tells Victor, "I afterwardsfound that these labours,
performedby an invisiblehand, greatlyastonishedthem; and once or twiceI
heard them, on these occasions, utter the words good spirit,wonderful..."
(114).
The ironyof the monster'spresence behind these wondrous phenomena
strikestwo ways. The firstironyis directed at the "invisible"distributionof
benefits within the new industrialcapitalism,as that distributionhad been
describedbyAdam Smithforty-two yearspriorto thepublicationofFrankenstein:
... theannualrevenueofeverysociety is alwaysprecisely
equaltotheexchange-
able value of the wholeannual produceof its industry .... everyindividual
necessarilylaboursto rendertheannualrevenueof the societyas greatas he
can .... and he is in this,as in manyothercases,led by an invisiblehand to
promotean end whichwas no partof hisintention.'I
The second ironyis directed at the pastoral mythologyimplied in the aristo-
cratic retreatto the countryside:the pagan mythof pastoralplenitude,over-
laid in Paradise Lost and in Christianhistorygenerallywiththe storyof the
Garden of Eden, is in Frankenstein made accountable to man. The source of
fertilityand wealth is described as the labor of a monster that is man's
creation, and the class-analysisto whichthispassage lends itselfis carriedover
to modern economicconditionsthroughthe adoptionof Adam Smith'sfamous
image for the unconscious regulationof a laissez-fairemarket.For while this
hand may be invisibleto the middle and upper-classaudience Smithis addres-
sing, the workingclass knows the body to whichit is attached.
Of significance in this respect are the aforementioned histories of

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:28:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Frankenstein 67

Elizabeth'sand Mrs. Frankenstein's families.Mrs.Frankensteinwas thedaughter

of a friend of Mr. Frankenstein,a merchantwhose ruin reduced her to the
statusof "an orphan and a beggar" (32) survivingonlyby such menialworkas
plaiting straw.Having rescued and marriedher, Mr. Frankenstein"stroveto
shelter her, as a fairexotic is shelteredby the gardener,fromeveryrougher
wind" (33). In her turn,Elizabethwas discoveredbyMrs. Frankensteinon one
of that lady's visits to the cottages of the poor. She, too, was the orphan
daughter of wealthyparents-her fatheran Italian nobleman-and in her
stateof distressher delicatebeautyappeared as thatof "a distinctspecies" (34)
among the cottagers'own children. In both cases, therefore,these women
rescued froma lifeof povertyand labor were markedforrescue. Even though
theyhad fallen fromit,the positionin lifeforwhichtheyhad been born was
visible in them; and thus their return to this position signifiednot only a
personal salvationbut also a systematicrejectionwithinthisnovel of thelifeof
common labor. In effect,the power thatrescues themis the same power that
conceals the labor of the monsterand then rejectsit when it becomes visible.
When labor becomes subjectivity-as the monstertriesto introducehimselfto
the De Laceys-it must be rejected and one must flee fromit,just as labor
must remain essentiallyforeignto Elizabeth and Mrs. Frankensteinand yet
intrinsicto someone like theirservant,Justine.For while Elizabeth speaks of
Justine's condition as a servantas one which in her fortunatecountry"does
not include the idea of ignorance,and the sacrificeof the dignityof a human
being" (65), Justine'sinabilityto defend her innocence againstthe accusation
of murder is more than sufficienttestimonyto her inferiorstatus.
Laissez-faire economics and pastoral nostalgiaboth conceal the realityof
labor behind an imaginary,ideal, unseen regulationof human affairs;and
this deathly "spirit"representsa denial of human agency identical to that
involved in the ideology of empiricismand carryingwithit the same results.
Though it is the countryhome of the De Laceys that he eventuallyburns,
withinthe logic of the storythe monsterjust as easilycould have destroyeda
factoryor a copy of The WealthofNations.From thisperspective,the monster
figuresas the text insofaras Frankenstein may be regarded as a pure workof
art or of some other abstractionthatconceals the labor of its origin.
The burning of the De Laceys' cottage acquires even more significance
through the fact that it is just this kind of rusticisolation to which Victor
appeals as he is torturedby the consequences of his creation. "Learn from
me," he tells Walton,
ifnotbymyprecepts, at leastbymyexample,howdangerousis theacquirement
of knowledge,and howmuchhappierthatmaniswhobelieveshisnativetownto
be theworld,thanhe whoaspirestobecomegreater
thanhisnaturewillallow.(53)

And a littlelater he adds,

If thisrulewerealwaysobserved;ifno manallowedanypursuitwhatsoever to
interferewiththe tranquility
of his domesticaffections,
Greecehad not been

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:28:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68 Daniel Cottom

enslaved;Caesar would have sparedhis country;Americawouldhave been

discoveredmoregradually;and theempiresof Mexicoand Peruhad notbeen
destroyed.(56)
Such passages are mature versionsof the anti-socialsentimentality in Victor's
characterizationof the harmony of his childhood relationswith Elizabeth.
According to this novel, however, once man creates a representationof
himself,that representationtakes power over him and he can never get back
to a natural state, no matterhow fondlyhe may imagine that state and no
matterhow stronglyhe may urge othersto hold to it. Victorappeals to that
isolated "middle State"12 to which Robinson Crusoe's fatheradjures him to
hold and fromwhichthe lure of adventureseparateshim. The wanderingsof
Victor, though, unlike those of Crusoe and Tom Jones and Pamela and
Roderick Random, and unlikethoseof thatprototypical adventurer,Odysseus,
do not returnhim to societyand domesticity, except to tell his storyand die.
There is no transcendencethroughsentimentality. Like theAncientMarinerof
Coleridge's poem (which is alluded to more than once in the novel),Victoris
the prey of repetitionas he followsthe marks and signs of his equivocal
relationshipwithhis creationall the wayto the seas around the NorthPole and
yet never discoversany significantprogressor change.
In Frankenstein, the act of representationimpliesthe denaturationof man,
and the ending of thisnovel servesto consolidatethe impressionthattherecan
be no real escape from the monster of representation.As the sailors on
Walton's ship threatento mutinywhenthatshipis lockedin a sea of ice,Walton
faces a crisisin his exploratoryjourney thatresemblesthedanger Frankenstein
had confrontedin his explorationof creation-and thuswe are broughtback
to the beginningof the novel. Even though Victormightbe expected to take
thisopportunityto continuehiswarningsagainstadventure,however,hisinitial
response is to argue against the sailors. His attitudesdo change somewhata
few days later,afterWalton has acceded to the demands of the crew; and yet
he stilldoes not take thischance to save Walton fromhis own error. His last
words are suspended in uncertainty:
Farewell,Walton!Seekhappinessin tranquility, and avoidambition, evenifitbe
the
only apparently innocentone of yourself
distinguishing in scienceand discover-
ies.Yet whydo I saythis?I havemyself beenblastedin thesehopes,yetanother
maysucceed.(217-218)
Even as he faces death, Victor cannot totallydissociatehimselffromthe
monster and the process of its creation.And if the reader is not surprisedby
this failure to sustain the moral lesson that he tried to develop from his
experiences-this failure of the sentimentallesson of so much Victorian
fiction-it maybe because he has alreadyseen Victorrefuseto takeadvantage
of an opportunitythatmighthave freedhim of his monster.In the eventthat
Victor had given him a mate, the monsterhad promised to go away to the
wilds of South America; but Victor's refusaldooms them both. Recounting
this opportunityin his dying speech, Victorsays,

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:28:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Frankenstein 69

madnessI createda rationalcreature,and was bound

In a fitof enthusiastic
towardshim,to assure,as faras wasin mypower,hishappinessand well-being.
This was myduty;but therewas anotherstillparamountto that.My duties
towardsthebeingsofmyownspecieshad greaterclaimsto myattention because
theyincludeda greaterproportion ofhappinessor misery.Urgedbythisview,I
refused,and I did rightin refusing,
to createa companionforthefirst
creature.
(217)

Even though this novel so thoroughlymaintainsthat the concept of the

human species is monstrouslyincoherent,it is considerationfor the species
that causes Victor to refuse to create an Eve for his Adam-in fact, to
dismember the women he had startedto createand to dump the pieces in the
sea. And even though there is reason for Victor'saction,as he doesn't trust
the monster to fulfillhis promise,this suspicion doesn't exhaust the signifi-
cance of his action. For withinthe novel's finalretreatfromthedarkerregions
of creation there is the central figureof a woman who is partiallymade and
then torn apart. This situationanticipatesthe ending of Conrad's "Heart of
Darkness," where a symbolicequation is effectedbetween "the horror"and
Kurtz's Intended. What is missingin Walton'sship,whatcannot be represen-
ted, is a woman.
To say thisis not to locate in thisone refusala key to the entirenovel-it
should be clear fromall the foregoinganalysisthatone aspect of monstrosity
in thisnovel is thatthereis no singlekeyto itsappearance-but itis significant
that the preservation of the species is associated with an abortion of the
female. The monsterat one pointrefersto himselfas "an abortion"(222); and
it is importantto rememberthathe has a father,albeit an unhappy one, but
no mother. It is the femalewhichis missingin the authorshipof the monster.
The connectionbetweenbestialqualitiesand the threatofferedto men by
women is a literaryand historicalcommonplace that doesn't need to be
commented upon here, but what is particularlyrelevantto Frankenstein is the
factthatas a creatorof this"hideous progeny"MaryShelleyalso imaginedthe
absence, the monstrousness,and the destructionof her sex withinitscomplex
structureof textualdisharmonies.Afterall, the entirenovel is set on a ship at
sea, and to be a woman means, historically,not to be a sailor. Thus, the
repression of women and, specifically,of female sexualitycontributesto the
novel's monstrousness.Victor'srefusalto create a femalereveals the erogen-
eity of the science of that firstcreation; it reveals that aspect of the novel's
monstrousnessinvolved in the fact that Victor is a parodic Pygmalion(or a
parodic Zeuxis) and his creation the failureto create a woman. The nature
Victor penetrated in the creationof his monsterwas a femalenature; the act
he performedwas a sexual act; and it is the distortedimage of thisnatureand
this act that helps to make the monstera figurefor Mary Shelley'screation.
It is splendidlyironic,in viewof all these complexities,thatVictorFrank-
enstein also plays the role of the editor of the novel. "Frankenstein,"says
Walton,

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:28:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70 Daniel Cottom

discoveredthatI madenotesconcerning hishistory:

he askedto see them,and
thenhimselfcorrectedand augmentedthemin manyplaces;butprincipally in
givinghislifeand spiritto theconversationshe heldwithhisenemy.'Sinceyou
have preservedmynarration,' saidhe,'I wouldnotthata mutilated one should
go downto posterity.'(210)
As Victor seeks to overcome textualcorruptionby animatingthe manuscript,
giving it "his life and spirit,"he does seem to be a man who never learns his
lesson. The danger that storiesshould come alive has been a literaryconcern
at least since Dante told of Paolo and Francesca and became a centralproblem
of the novel as it developed under the influenceof Cervantes; one would
think that Victor, of all people, should be aware of this threat. Victor's
blindness, however, serves to underscore the persistenceof this problem
around which the novel has been organized fromDon Quixoteto the present
day.
All of the aspects of monstrosityin this novel are finallyaccompanied-
though not controlledor harmonized-by the concernwiththe interchange
between representationand life epitomizedby the way in whichthe monster
serves as both textual figureand textual ground-and yet as a ground that
ultimatelyis groundless, that is like the sea from which the reader, like
Walton, will finallyretreatto a more conventionalhome.

NOTES

1. Michel de Montaigne, "Apology for Raymond Sebond," The Complete WorksofMontaigne,

trans. Donald M. Frame (Stanford: StanfordUniversityPress, 1957), p. 391.
2. Mary W. Shelley,Frankenstein: Or, theModernPrometheus, ed. withan Introductionby M.K.
Joseph (London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1971). Page referencesare given withinthe text.
3. John Locke, Two TreatisesofGovernment, The WorksofJohnLocke,10 vols. (London: Thomas
Tegg, 1823; rep. Germany: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1963), 5: 363-64.
4. GiambattistaVico, TheNew Science,trans.withan Introductionby Thbmas Goddard Bergin
and Max Harold Fisch (Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, 1970), pp. 90-1.
Also, c.f. L. J. Swingle, "Frankenstein'sMonster and its Romantic Relatives: Problems of
Knowledge in English Romanticism,"Texas Studiesin Literature and Language 15 (Spring 1973),
and Donald G. MacRae, "The Body and Social Metaphor,"TheBodyas a MediumofExpression, ed.
Jonathan Benthall and Ted Polhemus (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1975).
5. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "Essay on the Origins of Languages," On theOriginofLanguage,
trans. with Afterwordsby John H. Moran and Alexander Gode, withan Introductionby Alex-
ander Gode (New York: FrederickUngar, 1966), p. 13.
6. Percy Bysshe Shelley,LetterCCCCXLII ("To Maria Gisborne"),Complete Works, ed. Roger
Ingpen and Walter E. Peck, 10 vols. (New York: Gordian Press, 1965), 10: 124.
7. See Elizabeth's commentson this similarityin Frankenstein, p. 65.
8. See Frankenstein, p. 62.
9. It is notable in thisrespectthatVictorearlier had feared thatthe monstermighttryto kill
Elizabeth (Frankenstein, p. 93) althoughhe seems to have entirelyforgottenthisfearat thetimeof
the wedding.

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:28:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Frankenstein 71

10. c.f. George Levine, "Frankenstein

and the Tradition of Realism,"Novel:A ForumonFiction7
(Fall, 1973).
11. Adam Smith,The WealthofNations,ed. withan Introductionand Notes by Edwin Cannan,
withan Introductionby Max Lerner,The Modern Library(New York: Random House, 1937), p.
423.
12. Daniel Defoe, RobinsonCrusoe,ed. with an Introductionby Donald Crowley, Oxford
English Novels, ed. James Kinsley(London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1972), p. 4.

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:28:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions