Frankenstein

I have to say that I was extremely surprised when I began actually reading the novel by Mary Shelley because it really wasn’t what I was expecting. We have a lot of preconceived notions in our heads about Frankenstein the monster such as green skin, blots jolting out from the neck and incoherent moaning in replacement of words brought on by Boris Karloff’s film in the 1930’s. The very fact that we call the monster “Frankenstein” indicates that we’ve just let others tell us what the original story was. Therefore, my thoughts of the novel initially went along the lines of “this is Frankenstein? But it’s so normal”. And as humorous is that might sound, it still rings true.

The introduction of Victor Frankenstein and his pursuits of science were just so natural that the audience can’t find much wrong with him. We’ve always perceived Dr. Frankenstein to be some kind of mad scientist, which is only partially true. He is as mad as any of us artists are when we get submersed into our work. We often say that it’s hard for us to start but as soon as we do we can’t stop. We obsess over the fine details until our eyes are ready to shrivel up and pop out. Our creations become our children in a way and that’s what happened to Victor. Putting him on this level actually makes him more human and relatable to us readers. Maybe that’s why our teachers try to make us not coddle our work and be able to throw it out.

Though, Frankenstein just abandoning his creation is what leads to the problem isn’t it? Even though the actual creation of the monster only took about a paragraph…and a small one at that! This is what I mean by this book was nothing like what I expected. In many ways, it was a lot more intelligent by playing off average person’s tendencies of obsession and thought processes, which was a major feat for the time period that this was written. It gives more credit to the reader’s intellectual capabilities in comparison to the non-sense garbage we produce now.

All in all I quite like this novel and wish more versions of the film telling stuck closer to the book. Although, that stands true for most films adaptations of novels.

Conventions of Horror

The genre of horror, at least the early versions of film and stories, seemed to play off the human fear and anxiety of suspense. Conventionally, horror stories have a great tendency to build up their climax by addressing what people fear either in the societal sense or personal sense. For instance, the ideas of monsters under the bed, giant spiders, and reanimated corpses would all be examples of personal fears whereas seeing something odd that most don't understand would be more societal in it's un-acceptance to strange phenomenons. To further heighten the sense of anxiety film directors will play with lighting, camera angles, and dramatic looks from the actors. Hidden details or mystery are almost always included as well. Books do the same but more use language to hide the details until the precise moment instead of fancy camera tricks. I believe the one of the greatest film directors to introduce these methods was Hitchcock playing off the great original horror writers such as Mary Shelley who's book we're reading now.

And of course we have all of the "stereotypical" devices that show up in traditional horror:

-monsters

-fog/thunderstorms

-candlestick/candlelight

-hidden passageways

-angry villagers

-old castles/ruins

-bookcases

-portraits with moving eyes

-classic music

-electricity

-spooked animals

-mysterious noises (chains, echoes, loud thumping)

-cobwebs (so odd....an indication of time perhaps?)

-skeletons/dead bodies

-bugs

-disappearance

-elongated shadows

-odd instruments

-cloaked figures

-glowing eyes in the dark

-grotesque sidekicks

-dismemberment

-coffins

-burial grounds

-basements/dungeons

-romance/beautiful lady

-deep/dense/dark forest

...we get the point.