I Am Thinking About How Victor Exists In A Liminal Space Where He Is Expected To Embody Masculinity Yet

some headshots I did for a Frankenstein assignment

you're in his dms i am awakening a part of his conscience that he did not know existed so that he can overcome his religious trauma have sex with women and enjoy his life we are not the same

does anyone remember that time demian called a guy a kitten and then procceeded to beat his ass so bad he had to leave the country

i did some precursory reading on this and i think you may find priscilla wakefield's introduction to botany interesting; it was written in 1796, around the time victor would have died in the novel. i also skimmed anna sagal's botanical entanglements, but the scope of it was in all honestly beyond me.

in regard to woman's education with botany, i came back with a lot of conflicting information. there's a few things in wakefield's introduction that align with what you suggested, and, in general, the study of science, and by extension, botany, was inherently linked with the study of religion and of "the natural order of things." in regards to the 1800s like you were saying, i did find a source saying that it started to be considered a modern science around 1830s, thus a serious occupation for men, and as a result women's status in the field began to decline; mary shelley would have had written frankenstein before this turning point.

however, i couldn't find anything about women being taught botany specifically during the late 1700s; i think it's unlikely women would have had any sort of formal education in botany (and etc), because while the frankensteins were rather radical in their approach to education, intense study was still seen as unfeminine and/or it was thought that it was beyond the intellectual capacities of women to study and learn at a profound level. but! some sources said that botany was an alternative way of studying natural history that would allow a person to subtly defy the (social) limits of woman’s intellectual practice and education, which i believe is very in character for elizabeth. many botanists were also illustrators and painters, like elizabeth!

Something very cool I realized about Elizabeth Lavenza-Frankenstein

So, this is backed up with some pretty light research so please correct me if I’m wrong, but just know this is based on something an actual historian told me.

So, apparently back in the 1800s, young women would be taught botany in order to educate them about the natural order of things. It was meant to teach them how God created the earth to be. It was a branch of science women (specifically upper class women, like Elizabeth) thrived in.

In Frankenstein, Elizabeth is meant to be the model of a young upper-class women. She engages in the natural sciences because she knows the natural order of things, and how Hod intended the world to work. This is in contrast to Victor, who wants to defy God and take his powers for himself. Victor wants to disturb the natural order of the world, and Elizabeth wants to preserve it.

Friends, bookworms, bitter lovers of classic literature’s greatest and most greatly cheated horrors, I have a request to make of you:

Send me the absolute worst film and TV series you know of when it comes to adapting—read: ruining, rewriting, and/or bastardizing beyond the point of recognition—the books of classic horror we know and love.

Give me your fanfictions of a fanfiction-level headaches. Your reincarnated wife plots. Your no-homo’d friends and/or siblings. Your heroes made into sudden assholes, your grating girlbosses full of contemporary wink-at-the-camera edginess, your dull damsels sanded down into corseted props, your monsters alternately stripped of their proper menace or their intelligence in order to fit the Universal Classics mold.

Give me the worst of your slop.

Plague me with your anti-recommendations in their dozens and hundreds.

Why do I make this request? So I can form a list. Ideally with cited sources, though I think we’re all aware that the easiest way to form said list is to just link to Wikipedia. I am at a loss for any known work that faithfully does right by our dusty old monsters and their foes.*

*Incidentally, if anyone has anything they would sincerely recommend to take the edge off, pass those my way too with your review. No need to suggest the Substacks or @re-dracula. They are my sole refuge as-is.

The reason for the list is that I would like to have it as reference material for what I hope can be a decently public-facing open letter to Hollywood as a plea, a curse, and a general shaming for the industry that has refused to actually read, comprehend, and acknowledge the books they continue to harvest for content without ever doing right by the stories, casts, or themes. Their notion of ‘adaptation’ has dissolved entirely into a game of Telephone with the last half a dozen filmmakers who barely skimmed, let alone liked, the books in question.

That said, I have some specific books in mind already, starting with Dracula and The Picture of Dorian Gray. You know why. But others on the roster include Frankenstein, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Carmilla, and The Phantom of the Opera. Let me have the worst of the worst of their movie and television counterparts; that goes double for the ones that have made you full-body cringe at their popularity.*

*It goes without saying that Francis’ fanfiction is at the top of the list. No need to rub more salt in that wound.

My inbox is ready for your worst, friends. Hand over the bile.

when referring to the cycle of abuse i am mostly talking about the pseudo-incestous relationships within the frankenstein family, specifically between alphonse and caroline and victor and elizabeth. while i need to make a catch-all post explaining it all at once, there’s quite a bit of analysis regarding the topic sprinkled around my blog, specifically here and here and here. though again its something i need to elaborate on, i speak a little bit on why and how victor’s perception of his own childhood is so idealized here, which is why his idealistic narration regarding his parents (the passages you pointed out) are so different from my interpretation of his childhood. essentially, caroline was groomed by alphonse (her father figure replacement of sorts) into becoming his wife. caroline then perpetuates her own abusive situation with her children by grooming elizabeth into a second version of herself, and then dictating her marriage to victor (who is all but her biological sibling) so that, like her mother before her, elizabeths shifts from a familial role to a wife role with the same person. it’s not explicit that they see each other as siblings but there’s an egregious amount of subtext suggesting they do. also they are actually blood related in the 1818 version, but call each other cousins in both versions, and elizabeth refers to victor’s siblings as her brothers. also never apologize there are no stupid questions

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?

victor describing himself as “always having been imbued with a fervent longing to penetrate the secrets of nature” and then a few chapters later saying "[henry] was a being formed in the very poetry of nature". 🤨🤨 i know what you are

i really adore the fact that by the end of the book franknestein had managed to create an equal and mate to the creature by having turned himself as such. like he has become so misshapen that he can no longer fit in human society and his internal monologue is so eerily reminiscent of the creatures. this is franknestein:

He wished me to seek amusement in society. I abhorred the face of man. Oh, not abhorred! they were my brethren, my fellow-beings, and I felt attracted even to the most repulsive among them as to creatures of an angelic nature and celestial mechanism. But I felt that I had no right to share their intercourse. I had unchained an enemy among them, whose joy it was to shed their blood and to revel in their groans. How they would, each and all, abhor me, and hunt me from the world, did they know my unhallowed acts and the crimes which had their source in me!

and this is the creature about the family in the cottage:

I had admired the perfect forms of my cottagers—their grace, beauty, and delicate complexions: but how was I terrified when I viewed myself in a transparent pool! At first I started back, unable to believe that it was indeed I who was reflected in the mirror; and when I became fully convinced that I was in reality the monster that I am, I was filled with the bitterest sensations of despondence and mortification. Alas! I did not yet entirely know the fatal effects of this miserable deformity.

oh my god. og my god. the symbolism of it all