Curate, connect, and discover
(in response to @mrbrainrot’s post here)
it feels incorrect, to me, to claim that victor views elizabeth as an accessory: while it’s tempting, i think, to view his portrayal of elizabeth as reductive (casting her as a saint, an ideal of feminine domesticity, the “angel in the house”), we must acknowledge that victor’s narration also recounts her standing in front of the corrupt court system to defend justine, speaking against the injustice of the system and attempting to fight against its verdict, critiquing 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. she is, within his own account, thoughtful, courageous, and politically aware.
while i’m open to being proved wrong, to me, most of the “victor views elizabeth as a possession” viewpoints hinge primarily on one specific line, where victor says the following:
“'I have a pretty present for my Victor—tomorrow he shall have it.' And when, on the morrow, she presented Elizabeth to me as her promised gift, I, with childish seriousness, interpreted her words literally and looked upon Elizabeth as mine—mine to protect, love, and cherish. All praises bestowed on her I received as made to a possession of my own... till death she was to be mine only."
i am hesitant to call his relationship with elizabeth straightforwardly objectifying, at least not in the flat, dehumanizing way that this quote and this interpretation often implies. the keyword here, to me, is that victor explicitly names this mindset as “childish.” he is not presenting this possessiveness as justified. it is clearly marked by the text (and victor himself) as something immature, shaped by how caroline frames elizabeth’s role rather than how victor sees her. in that sense, this passage become less a declaration of elizabeth’s status as an object to victor and more an origin for victor’s warped understanding of intimacy with elizabeth. victor also seems to outgrow this view, as the rest of the novel doesn’t support the idea that he views elizabeth merely as an object.
beyond that, my stance on whether or not there was genuine romantic sentiment between victor and elizabeth becomes a lot more muddied. i've already analyzed the way that they were groomed and the psuedo-incestuous implications of their relationship in depth (here), but this in itself does not denote a lack of romance between them. the conclusion that there could have been some sort of romantic love there even despite them seeing each other as siblings is a disturbing one, but it's one i'd argue is to an extent supported by the text, even if it is inseparable from the preordained nature of their relationship. but at the same time, i'd also argue that victor is aware of this on a subconscious level and is simultaneously repulsed by it: the only kiss in the entire book is in victor's infamous dream where elizabeth decays into caroline in his arms, which feels like a very deliberate piece of subtext.
in regard to clerval i may have to articulate my thoughts on him in a separate post as this is already long enough as it is lol.