Mary Shelley's Past: the dream versus reality

The question of Frankenstein’s origin is one which has puzzled many. The thought that a woman could come up with such a horrid idea was unnerving at the time which is why many sought to find a logical explanation. In her introduction, which she wrote as the result of the insistence of many who wished to unravel this mystery, Mary Shelley attempts to explain how the idea of such a monster came to her.  However, she wrote this introduction over a decade after her book was published, not wanting to cause any personal intrusion in her novel. She gives a very general and brief report of the summer in which Frankenstein was created and addresses the fact that this idea in no way was sparked by past experiences or pain she had felt herself. She states that she knew no measure of true pain back in those days, for her loss came much after. The reader can infer that this lost companion whom she speaks of was her husband, yet she makes it a point to not mention his name, keeping her personal life locked away and to herself.

            Shelley’s attempt to satisfy the reader without giving any personal information and keeping it as general as possible makes one wonder if it was simply a ploy to keep people from speculating and dabbling more into her life. The fact that she stated she had known no pain back when the story was created wasn’t entirely true. She had experienced a miscarriage before that summer and had to cope with the fact that she was seeing a married man and that the child she was carrying would have been a bastard child in society’s eyes. Although what Mary Shelley stated may be true, that there were no personal implications within the story, the fact that the idea came to her in a dream brings in the subconscious. She may not have thought more of the dream, or she may have simply not wanted to share her fears with the public, yet the dream clearly has some underlying resemblance to her life, embodying certain fears which could have arisen in her mind.

            In the dream she had that summer, which she describes in her introduction, she saw a creature being rejected by his creator. With this she may subconsciously be channeling two different fears within her: the first being the rejection of any child she had in the past or would have in the future, not only from Percy himself, but from society as well; and the second being that the creation of life would be accompanied by death once again. The fact that Victor leaves the creature on its own and that society rejected him, perpetually remaining outside of society marked the creature’s fate, and it’s this very fate which may have subconsciously sparked this terror, for she didn’t want her child to grow up without a father and being ostracized by society. These of course are mere speculations, which string together Mary Shelley’s subconscious to her vivid imagination, which in no way lead us to a concluding thought.

Discussion Questions:

In your opinion, are Mary Shelley’s fears entwined in her novel? Does she remove herself from the text as she states?

What significance does that dream have in your opinion? 

Using Frankenstein's Creation: Susan Tyler Hitchcock on Frankenstein

In this excerpt from her book Frankenstein: A Cultural History, Susan Tyler Hitchcock discusses the ways in which Frankenstein’s name has been used throughout history. The Victorians—who didn’t believe that the scientific breakthroughs of human beings could really add anything to the world—saw Frankenstein as a model of “mistaken idealism” (Hitchcock 263). Cartoonists used the image of Dr. Frankenstein to satirize political decisions, they felt, were leading the social system to an upheaval. In these situations the working class became Frankenstein’s creature, ready to destroy their creator. In other situations, such as wartime political cartoons, the creature often represented the opposing force, feral and ready to destroy the underprepared British forces. Essentially, to the Victorians, Hitchcock argues, the creature represented a dangerous other who, not only, did not deserve sympathy, but who was also capable of leading the misguided ‘Frankenstein’ to ruin. It was only the “radical philosophers [of] the late 1800’s” (Hitchcock 265) who saw the monster as a positive comparison as he was the force capable of making change, despite the situations he was faced with. 

Mary Shelley 1797-1851

In the United States in 1852 the myth was being used in a way similar to how it was being used in the UK. The creation represented something not necessarily evil, but certainly misguided, that required others in the community to educate it and show it the light. The creation in this scenario being the working class or the general public, while Frankenstein represented those in the upper class who were capable of providing education. In the 1900’s, as the United States aged their first colonial war against the Philippines, Frankenstein became a symbol for the United States itself while the creature became a symbol of a giant destructive force bent on ruining the American way of life. Due to the shifting sympathies between Frankenstein and Frankenstein’s monster, by the 1900’s people were beginning to use the name Frankenstein interchangeably to describe both. This was a result of people being unfamiliar with the novel and instead only being familiar with how the myth had been used in political cartoons, articles, and other modes of opinion that utilized Shelley’s story. This confusion over the characters also occurred because there were few copies of the novel actually in circulation and it wasn’t until 1912 that the general reading population actually had access to the text.

Hitchcock provides her reader with useful information about how the Frankenstein myth has been used and abused. From people only having a vague sense of what the story is about, to characters being seen in accordance to completely different sympathies, Hitchcock argues that through societies use of the Frankenstein myth, the original meaning has been lost in a wider cultural sense. The ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality being applied to Frankenstein is potentially problematic when looking at the original text because it loses all sense of connection between Frankenstein and his creation. Of course it keeps the sense of responsibility, the sense that Frankenstein brought his monster into the world, that he tried to defy nature, but it loses the sense of Frankenstein as a failed parent, as a mother. Focusing purely on Frankenstein’s God complex—as the political cartoons often do—loses Victor Frankenstein as an individual. Once the personal aspect has been lost then the story becomes less about a person and more about a society. 

Susan Tyler Hitchcock

Frankenstein did not just create the creature out of some need to defy nature. Frankenstein from early on seems to be reverent nature to an extent. Watching the power of lightening, being overwhelmed by the beauty of the sublime in nature, finding comfort in the outdoors, it seems Victor cares less about overcoming nature and more about being a part of it. Nature is often referred to as a feminine force—Mother Nature—Frankenstein creating his monster wasn’t about him being a God, it was about him being a mother. The need to create and be an equal to the world he loves so much. Victor labored over his child, worked hard to create a creature that would reflect his ideal new life. Spending months away from the world, hardly eating or sleeping, until finally he had created something he had thought to be beautiful. Victor’s sin doesn’t lie in the fact that he created this being, his fault lies in the fact that he reduced him to a monster. Reducing the complexities between Frankenstein and the creature to a relationship where Frankenstein was misguided and created something beyond his understanding undermines the femininity of the story, the issues of motherhood, and the responsibility of being a parent. It is through this reduction of the relationship between Frankenstein and his monster that cultural understanding of the text becomes simplified to a problematic extent. 

For excerpts from Susan Tyler Hitchcock's book Frankenstein: A Cultural History, go here.
For a very strange 'Monster Mash' parody video that will probably disturb you on multiple levels, go here.

Discussion Questions:
1.  At various points in history, depending on the situation, the opinion on whether or Frankenstein or the creation is the hero seems to shift. Often they still represent the same things in political metaphors—Frankenstein being the political force or upper class while the creation represents the working masses—only the sympathy changes. What do you think this says about the ways in which readers were interpreting Frankenstein?

 

2. As mentioned in the blog, Frankenstein and the monster used as a metaphor are used as a way to include people under one label and create a very “us versus them” situation. What do you think is the effect of using literary figures as a means to represent entire groups?

 

3. What about the way in which the myth was reaching the public? It is unlikely everyone had read the novel themselves, instead it was often situations like these cartoons that made people aware of the myth. How do these cartoons affect people’s understanding of Frankenstein and the themes presented in the novel?

 

The Responsibility of a Scientist

The theory of electricity didn't just bring the promise of a new, more efficient source of energy, it brought the promise of unlocking the substance of life itself. One of the most significant scientific debates in Europe, during this time period, was the "Vitalist Debate," where scientists argued whether or not the source of life was of divine origin or not. There were two main figures on both sides of this debate. One was Abernethy, who argued that life was based on some mysterious, fundamental "principal of life" that was super-added into human beings to give them life. The other figure was William Lawrence who argued that life was caused by material substances that are inherent to the human body without needing some sort of intervention from something that is outside the human body. Many people believed that the key to the problem of Vitalism lied in electricity. Many scientists like Luigi Galvini and Giovanni Aldini performed experiments where they administered electricity to dead animals and even human corpses in an attempt to reanimate them. 

Pictured: "Science" 

At this time, in light of the experiments of scientists like Aldini and Galvani, the reanimation of the dead seemed like a real scientific possibility. This was a world where science began to explore ideas that seemed blasphemous to explore. This was the world where Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, the first science fiction novel. 

In Frankenstein, the main character is Victor Frankenstein, a young man studying chemistry in Ingolstadt who becomes obsessed with creating life. He works for many months collecting the remains of corpses and assembling them into his creature. Frankenstein succeeds in his mission and immediately becomes horrified with his creature, who ultimately ends up murdering several of his loved ones. 

It's very easy to read Shelley's novel as a warning for scientists who want to play God, but Shelley's message is much more complicated than that. Despite what Hollywood might want you to believe, Victor Frankenstein is not a "mad scientist," in fact, I wouldn't even call him a scientist. Frankenstein is a student of science. The only true scientists in the novel are his professors, Krempe and Waldman. Shelley paints Waldman as a benevolent mentor for Frankenstein, he is kind and well spoken and represents everything that is right with science. Waldman urges Frankenstein to study all branches of science in order to become a true man of science. At this point in history, science was a much broader term encompassing more than just the "natural philosophies." Waldman urged Frankenstein to broaden his breadth of knowledge to prevent him from becoming a "petty experimentalist."

This is what a true scientist is, a true seeker of knowledge.  Frankenstein is not this. He becomes obsessive, narrows his area of study to fulfill one sick ambition--reanimation of the dead. The crazy thing is that Frankenstein actually succeeds. He creates a living creature, and more than that. He creates a creature with a soul. The "monster" he creates feels, thinks, has desires, feels love, feels hate. The creature becomes murderous because Frankenstein neglects him. 

It's not that the act of creating the creature that is inherently evil. Part of what made Shelley's novel so controversial is that it takes the materialist side in the Vitalist debate. Frankenstein is able to create life out of inorganic material. The evil that comes from his experiment is not in the actual reanimation, it's in the way Victor refused to follow up his experiment and deal with the ramifications of bringing new life into the world.

Discussion Questions:

1. Is the character of Victor Frankenstein a critique of scientists like Aldini and Galvani? What statement is Shelley trying to make about the science of her time?

2. Victor Frankenstein did not consider the consequences of his creation and let his creature go loose, and this led to the death of an innocent child. In the process of creating a female companion for his creature Victor actually thinks about the consequences, and he decides to destroy the creature for the sake of humanity. Was this the right thing to do? Should he have denied his creation a companion?

Family Affairs in Frankenstein

At the time that Mary Shelley was writing her novel Frankenstein, the British Empire was generally concerned with the idea of the preservation of the "nuclear family." This being the ideal family that has a patriarchal structure in place. The husband and father is the main dictator of the household and deals with the responsibility of providing for the family. In Mary Shelley's, Frankenstein, family structures and lineage plays an important role in the development of Victor's character. His parents are ideally a representation of what the nuclear family should look like.

At the beginning of the novel, Alphonse, finds his wife Caroline kneeling by the coffin of her deceased father. Shelley chooses this to be the first interaction that we see between Alphonse and Caroline to show that he picks his wife based on her vulnerability. Alphonse is aware that Caroline is desperate for companionship after losing a father figure. So, Alphonse does not only serve as her husband throughout the text, but as a father figure as well that confines her to a domestic sphere within the home. Shelley states that, "Caroline is portrayed as a plant capable of surviving only under the careful cultivation of her surrogate caretaker" (18). Her surrogate caretaker being Alphonse. From the beginning of the novel, Shelley makes it clear that she is critiquing the idea of what a "perfect" family should look like. At this time, the "perfect" family would have all women submitting to the patriarchal figures within the home.

(Above: Picture of what the ideal "nuclear family" would look like)

Mary Shelley also suggests that family structures are carried over and reflected in their children. When Elizabeth joins the Frankenstein family, Victor treats Elizabeth exactly how Alphonse treats Caroline. Both men view their wives as weak and unable to survive without them. Both men view the female body as possessions that they have complete control over. Victor states that he saw Elizabeth as " . . . a possession of my own" (21). Shelly offers a critical approach to stating that the "nuclear family" can only exist if the men are in complete control over the women in the family. But, the woman in the family have to be weaker and willing to let the men rule over the family in order for the family to "properly" function. However, Shelley challenges this notion of the perfect family within the Frankenstein family when Victor creates the monster. 

The creation of the monster could be a reflection or hinting towards having a child outside of wedlock. This challenges the notion of the "nuclear family" because of the way that Victor creates the monster. Besides having children with his wife, Victor "births" or "creates" his own child. However, his refusal to take responsibility for the monster after he creates the monster critiques his ability to be a successful father or caretaker. 

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1) Discuss how Victor's inability to care for the monster leads the monster to becoming violent? What would you say Shelley's "ideal" family would look like? What type of familial structures would be in place? 

2) What family patterns do you see being transferred through the generations of the Frankenstein's? Could these patterns been broken? Explain, why or why not.

The Creator and Creation: Who Is The Real Villain?

As we become engrossed in Dr. Frankenstein's tale, and in turn, the tale of the monster himself, our human sympathies are tested and evoked even in the twisted feelings/perceptions of the monster. Aesthetically, our monster is a living representation of all things terrible and supernatural.Created by man, he is the result of the imperfect, sometimes evil, endeavors of the human race to achieve that which we are not designed for-- the attainment of power over life and creation. We watch Victor Frankenstein achieve this goal, compromising his ideals and human virtues to create man in his own image: imperfect and inherently evil. From a religious standpoint and one that accurately coincides with the history of man, our image is one of the beauty and successes of nature, or God, but our accomplishments are those of destruction and vice, that some would attribute to the workings of the devil. We are created in God's image and tainted with the temptations of evil; Shelley uses her knowledge of religion and particularly the epic Paradise Lost as groundwork for her understanding of human nature.

If we consider humans as created in the image of perfection yet poisoned with the passions of evil, we can then begin to discover where Victor Frankenstein's creation of his own being went wrong. The power to create life was one bestowed on God and He alone, and by attempting to capture and master these powers, Frankenstein has stepped into the workings of the devil. For in biblical history, Lucifer is the only other character we can refer to as one who tried, and to some extent succeeded, in attaining Godly powers. Because of this we can equate Dr. Frankenstein to no other force but the devil himself. If we see man as an imperfect physical manifestation of God, then Frankenstein's monster is, in turn, an imperfect manifestation of man. Victor attempts to create a being in his own image and succeeds as completely as is humanly possible.

So what makes the monster so terrible? Aside from his physical repulsiveness, he seems to be a virtuous character as much as any mortal man can fulfill the dimensions of virtue. However he is still an image of terror, one that haunts our very nightmares and leaves us trembling in fear for our lives. He is a man, in the most imperfect sense of the word. Created by man, he cannot possess physical or natural beauty, for his very existence is unnatural and is a crime to the natural order of things. His creator was committing the ultimate sin by harnessing godly powers and making them humanly accessible. Because of this, Frankenstein's monster is created in the image of sin-- ugly, detestable, and presumptuously evil.

Created in man's image, the monster possesses all the same passion, desire for companionship, and thirst for knowledge as man himself. He is no different than you and I; he simply wishes to understand the world and how it works, and share meaningful relationships with those whose company would benefit his well-being. These people do not exist for our monster, unfortunately, and the lack of companionship in his life is what eventually leads to his own disorder and murderous tendencies. Don't we see this very isolation and hopelessness lead to human murders of other people? Whether it's a medieval aristocrat murdering his beloved's lover out of jealousy and misery, or a neglected student full of hatred and revenge shooting up his own institution, we see again and again the murderous capabilities of humans throughout history.

Frankenstein's monster is just another person, shunned by the world and his creator, doomed to walk the desolate forests and mountains of the earth alone, searching in vain for some positive connection to life. His intelligence allows him to identify and understand the origin of his miseries, and even in this light logic leads him to seek out his creator and resolve his problem through the creation of a bride, a single friend, of his own. How can someone be evil who seeks to protect others from his wrath and create happiness for himself?

His outstanding virtue is never clearer than when he saves the little girl from drowning, and is yet again condemned for his actions.When he is shot, he exhibits nothing more than human rage and passion; "The feelings of kindness and gentleness, which I had entertained but a few moments before, gave place to hellish rage and gnashing of teeth. Inflamed by pain, I vowed eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind," (Shelley 99). Even to the mildest of dispositions, the monster's reaction to being shot falls directly in the realm of a probable human reaction. If this had been an actual human being, I dare say in this moment he would have pursued and killed his attacker on the spot. Even here we see a higher level of virtue and respect for life than that displayed by humans.

Again and again we see the monster's overwhelming virtue give way to murderous rage. When he is detested by every living being, including his creator, how can we possibly make judgment of his actual character? It has been corrupted heavily, not only by the actions of mankind and how he is treated, but by the nature of his creation itself and his creator. Even the man he could rightly call a divine Father is unable to behold the disgusting being he has created, horrified by the idea of life created from death.

Above is a trailer for a modern rendition of Frankenstein, rather a sequel to the story borne from the pages of Mary Shelley. Here we see human curiosity and desire for discovery overcome the commonplace knowledge that the man-made monster is a force not to be reckoned with. This is just one more recent film portrayal of this inhuman, yet incredibly human, monster.

Discussion Questions

What attributes make Frankenstein's monster so vastly different than humankind? Arguably, is he better or worse (morally, physically, etc...) than humans themselves and why?

Why is the monster's creation considered a failure? Do you agree with Victor's opinion, or are there ways in which his creation can be considered a success? Explain.

Frankenstein's destruction of Innocence

In an essay in Critical Terms for Literary Study ideology is described as a tool for controlling societies and managing social contradictions. The dominant social class controls the critiques and views that are seen in their own world. A dominant social class that desires to encourage the lower social class to focus on producing and exporting profitable products to make money to sustain their society may bring to light the benefits and importance of their position.

Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" does not seem to create an ideology that is aimed at one specific group of people. More important themes and symbols seem to litter the book, making a bigger influence with critics over the years. The novel does focus on the tribulations and the consequences of Frankenstein delving into the powers of God. Maybe Shelley is crafting a cautionary tale. However, Frankenstein's agony and the trauma he suffers can indicate that Shelley is trying to continue a tradition that nature should not be controlled and surpassed by man alone.

Victor Frankenstein found himself in great pain and agony as soon as the monster came to life. He was bedridden for days and looked ill. Frankenstein's physical condition has become worse and he is even acting out of place. The doctor "traversed the streets without any clear conception," as his "heart palpitated in the sickness of fear." These physical descriptions describe a man who is wounded and ill. Frankenstein's condition has worsen to the fate of a zombie. He is in pain and is not in the best state as his suffering surrounds his obsessions to defy nature and create life,

Frankenstein also suffers when it comes to his relationship with his family. His ambition and obsession with science leads him to ostracize himself, but the creature also brings pain to Frankenstein's family. His cousin William is murdered at the hands of his own creation. "The sweet child, whose smiles delighted and warmed my heart, who was so gentle, yet so gay!" as Frankenstein's father describes the young boy, is a child who's death resembles an innocence lost due to Frankenstein creating the monster. The death of William is just one of the consequences for the monster's creation.

The monster is not a creation of nature as Victor Frankenstein created him out of science and research. He is not a man or woman birthed from a man and Frankenstein, along with his loved ones, is being punished for that transgression. This is not a world that one would want to live in and Shelley is showing us that by framing the novel with a darker aesthetic. Frankenstein is often described as "melancholy" and devoid of joy throughout most of the novel. This darker setting is used put in place after the monster has been created. Shelley is showing readers how dark and perilous the world is when a person defies the laws of nature.

The darker, downtrodden aspects in the story of Frankenstein reveal a place that many people were people would not want to live. Shelley's focus on realism and consequences in the novel have an important affect on Frankenstein. The loss of the scientist's innocence is highlighted with the many deaths that the monster leaves in his path while also proving that their is a responsibility to be upheld with scientific discovery.

Discussion Questions:
1): With her novel "Frankenstein," Is Mary Shelley upholding an ideology that men and scientists in general, should not break away from the rules of nature? Is this accentuated through the death of Frankenstein's innocent family members at the hand of the monster? Is this a realistic claim to make now?
2) Is their a significance that the creature murders William instead of a random passerby? Does it have more of an impact on the novel if it is just a child?

Narrative Structure and the Will of Nature in Frankenstein

Reading through the first half of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, it's not difficult to imagine how rich scholarly discussions have perpetuated for the nearly 200 years since its publication.  The novel appears at once very openly interpretable, partially due to the relevancy of the novel with modern and romantic readers and also to the novel's ambitious scope. Though relatively short, the novel presents itself as the summation of early romantic influences, commenting on the passions, nature, the sublime, and issues of masculinity and femininity, all while directing its focus forward toward the unknown.  As I was reading, I was struck by the narrative structure, how the interwoven perspectives of Walton, Frankenstein, and the creature show each characters' receding levels of humanity.  As the novel proceeds inward, readers must contemplate who is man and who is monster, a feat somewhat more difficult than the novel would have us suspect.

Walton, Frankenstein, and the creature in an unintentionally appropriate color sequence

The humanity of each character can be represented by their relationship with nature, since as readers, our sympathies are placed in those who exist with nature rather than those who try to conquer it.  Robert Walton is the overly ambitious, self-consciously self-educated explorer, who after failing to become a poet, seeks his claim over nature by sailing to the North Pole.  Like Frankenstein, Walton desires to reveal the unknown, for "what may not be expected in a country of eternal light?" (7).  He half expects a paradise beyond the ice, and once again, like Frankenstein, his double interest in the fantastical or supernatural and the scientific is dangerous.  He essentially is Frankenstein pre-monster reanimation, and Frankenstein's story serves to act as a warning for Walton.  

Frankenstein's notice or disinterest in the sublime proves useful in understanding his relationship with nature, for although he is often set against the scenery, Frankenstein finds the sublime in nature's most tempestuous throws.  Much of his interest in science can be traced back to childhood events, such as the thunderstorm he witnessed at age fifteen.  After "watching its progress with curiosity and delight," the storm violently hits a tree near Frankenstein's house, and he recalls how he "never beheld any thing so utterly destroyed" (23).  This is the first time Frankenstein witnesses nature produce something terrible, something outside of man's control.  He finds it sublime only because it excites his curiosity, and his animation of the creature is an attempt at recreating these feelings within him.  He becomes obsessed not only with "infusing life into an inanimate body," (35) but with creating a man-made sublime.  For two years his "eyes were insensible to the charms of nature," (34) and he recalls how when the creature came to life, "the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled [his] heart" (36).  Although Frankenstein finds disgust in his work, his power in overcoming the boundaries of life and death instills in him a God-complex that lingers throughout the rest of the novel.

The creature that Frankenstein creates appears more connected with nature than either Walton or Frankenstein.  He finds sanctuary in the North Pole, one of the last places untouched by mankind, and is able to gracefully navigate through mountainous terrain and inclement weather.  Frankenstein's "monster" is the embodied form of nature itself; he is terrible and ugly only because the passions which led Frankenstein to create the creature are terrible and ugly.  

There are a ton of Frankenstein adaptations out there, but here's a well-known scene from the 1931 film with Colin Clive and Boris Karloff.  Surprisingly, this is the fourth film adaptation made.

Discussion Questions

1.  How does Shelley use Frankenstein's relationship with nature and the sublime to characterize him and show his development throughout the novel? 

2. What prevents Frankenstein from establishing a creator-creation relationship with his monster? How does this affect the creature's decisions as time goes on?

Frankenstein and the Faustian Bargain

Victor fleeing from his creation

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein differs greatly from the watered down version of the cinematic world. What the cinematic versions lack are Shelley's Victor Frankenstein and his battling conscience. We catch glimpses of it in the old movies, but it never is as fully developed as in the original novel. Victor Frankenstein has an insatiable thirst for knowledge. He devotes all of his time and energy to the study of science. You could almost say that Victor had... sold his soul... for the total understanding of science, life, and death.

Faustus (right) making a deal with Mephistophilis (left)

This metaphorical selling of one's soul harkens back to Christopher Marlowe's play Doctor Faustus. In this play, a man of theological study makes a deal to sell his soul in return for knowledge on life and death, knowledge that normally is known by God and his angels. This concept has become known as a Faustian Bargain, and is still prevalent in today's books, television, and movies. The TV show Supernatural and Disney's The Little Mermaid are popular examples of Faustian Bargains.

Crossroads Demon Deal

Ariel and the Contract

One of the concepts that preoccupies the mind and studies of Victor Frankenstein is the idea of bringing life to the dead, or necromancy. Faustus too is interested in this idea. In fact, this is how he is introduced into the play. Both men desire to have the power of God, the ability to control and create death from life and life from death. It is suiting that the original title of the novel was Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus. Prometheus was a titan of ancient Greek mythology. His crime was bringing fire to the mortals. Previously this knowledge was only known by the gods and goddesses of Olympus. Faustus receives the knowledge he seeks and the service of the devil Mephistophilis for twenty four years at the cost of his immortal soul.

Victor's situation is a little more complicated than those of Prometheus and Faustus. At a young age Victor found a book on Agrippa. From then on he devoted his studies to the ancient and medieval scientists and natural philosophers. These men's theories and experiments were what launched modern science and medicine. But their theories also dabbled in magic and the occult. These men are noted for things such as alchemy, astrology, and astronomy. The scientists of Victor's time thought these to be crackpot ideas and the study of them as time wasted. Once Victor gets to university in Ingolstadt, he meets Monsieur Kempe who tells him that his ardent study of the old natural philosophers was in vain. Oddly enough, this does not deter Victor's passion for his dream of fully understanding nature, it actually increased the fervor of his studies. He threw himself completely into his studies. After two years, he had become one of the foremost scholars at Ingolstadt. During this time, he did not eat or sleep much and he did not keep in touch with his father, brothers, or Elizabeth. It was not until after he had finally created his monster that he took a break from his scientific pursuits. 

Arguably, one of the most lasting tropes of Doctor Faustus is the idea of a good angel and a bad angel. Faustus is constantly doubting himself and whether he should continue with his plans. He is visited by a good angel that tells him to repent and God will forgive him. But Faustus is also visited by a bad angel. The bad angel tells Faustus that God will never forgive him and never love him again so he should keep his deal with the devil. Victor also has a good angel and a bad angel, however they exist in his mind. He battles with his conscience from the moment he throws himself into his studies in Ingolstadt. He argued with himself over the ethics of science and whether he should continue with his experiments. In the end, Victor chooses to continue and does finish his experiments just as Fautsus continues with his deal.

Discussion Questions:

1. The metaphorical deal- If Victor sold his soul, to whom did he sell it? What does he get from the deal? What sealed the deal? What are the repercussions of the deal? What do you think will happen when his time is up? What is the role of the monster in this deal?

2. Did Victor truly foresee what his experiments would lead to? Victor mentions that both his father and Monsieur Kempe told him to abandon Agrippa and the like. Could he have heeded their warnings? What would it take to change his mind? Victor is noted for his passion for science, how can we apply Baillie to this?

The Joy in Fear

            From Baillie’s Introductory Discourse one can see the importance she lays on the passions and how a Drama, in her opinion, represents these in the most realistic way. It’s the sympathetic curiosity which she believes to be an innate feature in all individuals which drives us to question actions and feelings in order to understand the motive behind them. In Baillie’s tragedy Orra, this sympathetic curiosity is evoked by Orra, as by the end of the play she seems to go mad. What leads her to this fate is the crucial question, and that which Baillie attempts to describe throughout the play.

            Orra’s fascination with the supernatural seems almost as an addiction, for despite her knowing what these stories will do to her, she urges Cathrina on. Alice seems to be the one to notice the toll these stories have on Orra and worries about her health and on page 103 addresses her: “What pleasure is there, lady, when thy hand, Cold as the valley’s ice, with hasty grasp Seizes on her who speaks, while thy shrunk from Cow’ring and shiv’ring stands with keen turn’d ear To catch what follows of the pausing tale?” Orra goes on to explain how although to the external eye it may seem that is causes her pain, in reality she finds “joy in fear.” As our sympathetic curiosity grows as readers, we want to decipher why she feels this joy when in her semblance all one can see it terror. Although many interpretations may exist, one explanation can be found in Burke’s definition of the sublime in his A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime.

He stated that, “When danger or pain press too nearly, they are incapable of giving any delight, and are simply terrible; but at certain distances, and with certain modifications, they may be, and they are delightful, as we every day experience…Whatever excites this delight, I call sublime.” With this definition one can further understand Orra’s joy, or as Burke would state, delight. He goes on to say that the passions that belong to self-preservation are the strongest of all the passions and in the end this seems to be true, for in order to save herself from what she thinks is the ghost of the huntsman, she crosses this threshold between terror, which can be linked to the sublime and horror, which only inflicts pain. Burke thought no passion so effectually robbed the mind of all its power of acting and reasoning as fear did, which proves true in Orra’s case. Therefore, one can see Orra’s maddening as a mechanism of self-preservation, for on page 134 she says “Would that beneath these planks of senseless matter I could, until the dreadful hour is past, as senseless be!” She wants to escape from this world and does so in the end.

Discussion Questions:

      What effect does the sublime have on Orra in your opinion?

      In her madness, do you still believe she feels this joy she mentions earlier in the play?

   What do you make of this Joy she speaks of?

Ghost Stories Are Nothing New: The Psychology of Craving Fear

In Joanna Baillie’s Orra, the title character consistently asks to hear horror stories from Cathrina, her attendant. In the beginning of the play, when Orra is safe and at home the request seems reasonable, however she continues to ask for new stories even when in already terrifying situations. When Orra is safe the reader doesn’t question her request for ghost stories because it’s something we as a culture are familiar with. From horror movies, to haunted houses, to best-selling horror novels, seeking out fear is nothing new. But why is this? Why do people seek out things that only serve to terrify them? It’s simple, because, as Baillie puts it, "there is pleasure in [fear]" (Baillie 103).

The reason horror is so appealing to people is because they know they are never in any actual danger. Watching an evil spirit terrorize a family on television may make a person jump, cling to things around them and scream, but the fact is the moment the film is over, it’s over. The viewer can walk away and continue their life without worrying that a demon child secretly inhabits their living room. It’s the same thing for Orra. When she hears a ghost story the feeling of “cold blood [shooting] through every vein” (Baillie 103) isn’t really fear, its excitement. She knows that once the story is over she can go back to her life with the occasional nightmare as her only repercussion. It is only once the excitement turns to actual fear, once the imagined threat becomes real, that we see the true effects of the passion.

Before Orra has heard that she is to be confined in the abandoned castle until she agrees to marry Glottenbal, there is still evidence that her excitement is beginning to shift into fear. Alice makes Cathrina stop her story of Orra’s ancestor murdering a hunter because of the increased effect it seems to be having on Orra. When confronted she states that, “[her] mind of late has strange impressions ta’en,” and she doesn’t know why (Baillie 105). At this point it should be too early for Orra to have had any real fear affecting her. She is still secure with her ladies and Theobald, who see seems to like, however, she states that lately her fear is manifesting itself in a way she is not used to. Consequently a few lines later Urston enters and explains to Orra that there has been talk of sending her away, the first sign that the stories she has heard may actually present themselves as a threat to her.

Orra seems to exist in a world much like our own. People discuss ghosts and fairies and other supernatural events as if they could be real, however, no actual proof exists and for that reason they do not live in perpetual fear of the supernatural. Occasionally people will share a story of some unexplained event that has happened to them and those listening will look over their shoulder a few more times than necessary walking home, but that is the extent of the threat. Rudigere represents a very real threat to Orra. He is a man who has expressed obvious interest in her, with no intention of backing off. He is the reason she has been exiled in the first place and she is essentially powerless against him. She can push him away as much as she wants, but he is in charge of her security at the castle so the moment he decides to get what he wants through force, he potentially could. Orra is aware of this on some level and isn’t sure how to handle a situation where she is caught between physical and intangible supernatural threats. This complicates the situation because she has no one to turn to for comfort as the person who is meant to be protecting her has proven that he can’t be trusted with her body.

The appearance of Theobald is what eventually drives Orra to lose her mind because he represents what she knows to be impossible coming to life before her eyes. In the same way that someone watching The Ring would lose all sense of pleasure should the little girl crawl out of their own television, Orra is witnessing what appears to be an actual supernatural event come to life. When Cathrina told her about the legend of the hunter, Orra was in a position where it where a ghost coming for her was still an impossibility. Now, the situation has changed, she’s in the situation Cathrina’s ghost story described, and she is under the real influence caused by her fear of Rudigere. The combination of physical and psychological fear has left her in an extremely vulnerable position and the appearance of Theobald is just what she needs to be driven over the edge. She now knows from Catherina that spirits are real and she knows from Rudigere that her body is in danger, now she has a what she believes to be a supernatural force with the ability to kill physical body. This is when the fear becomes too much. The shift from imagined dangers to real ones is not pleasurable and it leads to Orra experiencing a fear she can no longer cope with. 

For another paper on Orra and fear, click here. You'll need to go to page 289 to access the particular article on Orra, this link leads to an entire book and various literary subjects.

On an only somewhat related note, while I was reading I could not stop thinking about the dream sequence in Anastasia, you know the one that makes the movie completely inappropriate for wimps like me? Check it out here if you don't mind being scared for life.

Discussion Questions:
1. When is the first time we see Orra's pleasure in her fear turn to actual horror?
2. Was what she was experiencing with Cathrina in the garden only excitement at the story or was she having a moment where she was able to foresee the actual danger coming her way? If so, what could have triggered this premonition? The increased pressure on her to marry?
2. How does the combination of Rudigere's presence and her exposure to Cathrina's stories work towards Orra's eventual insanity? Is one more important than the other?
3. How does the presence of the bandits aid in Orra's fear? She doesn't know they are there, as far as the reader knows, but they could represent a real threat. What is their purpose?

On Dreams and Nightmares in Baillie's Orra

In Act 2 Scene 1 Orra has a monologue where she talks about dreams, and what she finds most terrifying about them. In the scene, Alice talks about a night where she comes across Orra in her bedroom and observes that she is having a very fitful sleep. Alice thought about waking her, but decided not to and Orra is thankful about that. She explains in her monologue (105) that she isn't afraid of bad dreams, she is afraid of waking up in the middle of the night after a bad dream.

Orra explains, "Before mine eyes pass all incongruous things,/Huge, horrible, and strange, on which I stare/as idiots do upon this changeful world," (105) The key phrase here is "as idiots do." While you are dreaming you are not aware of what is going on, you are hardly even aware that you are in a dream. You see horrible fantastical things but they do not process. You have no reason or sense to register what you are seeing. Even though the images might be horrifying, they "pass by" and are forgotten. However once you wake up, you become aware again. You regain your usual mental capacities and are able to make "sense" of what you have seen in your nightmares. This is what Orra is afraid of:  the awful realizations your logical, awake mind makes in the dark after it's been primed from images inspired by her nightmares.

Pictured: The Nightmare by Henry Fuseli

This monologue is more than just an explanation of dreams and nightmares, it is also a meditation on the nature of Fear, the main "passion" that Baillie is fixating for this particular play. Think about Orra's dream monologue but replace "Dream" with "Ghost Story." Now think about the way Orra's superstitious fear develops throughout the play, specifically the way Cathrina implants the fear in Orra's psyche by telling her the ghost story of the Count of Hugo. In a way, the ghost story performs the role of a dream or nightmare. They are a series of "Huge, horrible, and strange" images passing before her eyes: the horn being blown three times, the haunted castle, the image of the hunter-knight stalking the descendants of Hugo. Although Orra is immediately disturbed upon hearing the story from Cathrina, this is equivalent to Orra tossing and turning as she has a nightmare. The actual "dreadful waking" doesn't take place until she is alone in the dark in the haunted castle locked in her room. This is where she, in a sense, wakes up and her mind recalls the images from the ghost story and starts "Shaping their forms distinctively and vivid/to visions horrible" (105)

This is the nature of Orra's fear. As we've seen this isn't a fear that preys on the weak minded. What I mean by that is that this fear that consumes Orra is fueled by her reason and sense. To reiterate once more: it's not the nightmare that drives Orra mad, it's the waking up. Orra might have been experienced "Horror" when she saw the figure of the Hunter-Knight emerge from the trap door, but it's the "Terror" that she experienced for days before hand that really pushed her over the edge. The fear Orra experiences develops slowly; it is insidious.

Also just because Orra becomes consumed by superstitious fear, it doesn't follow that Orra is necessarily superstitious. If she hadn't been primed by Cathrina's ghost stories she wouldn't have been so completely consumed by fear. To put this idea into perspective, let's take a hypothetical person, Annabelle. Annabelle doesn't believe in evil satanic dolls but over the weekend Annabelle saw a movie about evil satanic dolls that really impressed her. Let's say that as a prank Annabelle's mischievous friends put several creepy vintage dolls in her room as she sleeps, and then Annabelle wakes up around midnight and finds herself surrounded by creepy dolls. You wouldn't say that Annabelle believes in satanic dolls, but you would understand her unfathomable terror upon waking up. Now perhaps Annabelle would be terrified of finding random dolls in her room even if she hadn't seen that horror movie, but being primed with that horror movie would definitely increase the horror exponentially.

Pictured: Creepy Satanic Doll

To conclude, I want to briefly discuss what exactly it is about the story of the Count of Hugo that impresses Orra so much. Of course anybody would be a little uneasy around the idea of a murderous ghost that is out to kill you, but there is something about this tale that really resonated with Orra. In the above Annabelle example, I don't think that creepy dolls would send Annabelle over the edge of sanity. There is something going on with Orra, deep in her subconscious. I suspect that it might have something to do with her uneasiness about the Patriarchy, and her fears about being dominated by a husband. Orra doesn't make it a secret that she is uncomfortable around the idea of marriage and losing control of her land and positions. It's interesting that the ghost story that drives her crazy is the traditional, cliche Gothic trope of the sins of the father coming back to destroy his descendants. It's also interesting since the usual victims for this specific type of vengeful spirit are usually powerful, aristocratic men, and yet in this case Orra feels like she is the victim of this angry spirit.

Pictured: "Angry Spirits"

Discussion Questions:

What is Orra really afraid of? Is it really just the ghost of the Hunter-Knight? Or is it something deeper? What is her real nightmare?

Other than the "Sins of the Father" trope, what other classic Gothic story telling devices does Baillie employ in her play, and how do they add to the evolution of fear in Orra? 

Baillie Defying Double-Standards as Dramatist

Joanna Baillie entered into the era of Romanticism as a female writer confronting the double-standards of gender. She entered the realm of the literary world when she was first introduced to a wide range of education at Glasgow. Baillie knew the repercussions and large amount of criticism that she would face being a female author and dramatist in a male dominated literary world. When Baillie began to write tragedies and her "Plays on the Passions," she chose to publish anonymously. 

Baillie revealed in many letters that she did not handle the gender criticism well. (Read more about her letters, here) Her desire to prove that gender did not matter for the success of playwrights or literature was proven with her "Plays of the Passions."  When Voltaire was asked why no woman has ever written even a tolerable tragedy, "Ah (said the Patriarch) the composition of a tragedy requires testicles.' If this be true, Lord knows what Joanna Baillie does-- I  suppose she borrows them." This was just one of the many critics that Joanna had to read and hear criticism from. The criticism that she faced could be used to justify Baillie's motive for placing such a strong emphasis on critiquing the gender norms in the plays that she wrote. 

Instead of staying within the traditional sphere of "domesticated" writing, Baillie enters the masculine world of tragedy and drama. Baillie, instead of writing in a masculine way, writes in response and critiques the gender roles and the patriarchal structures in place. Baillie takes the traditional tragedy and adds her gothic touch by creating female characters that reflect the different passions such as fear. In her play, Orra, Baillie uses the passion fear to attempt to critique the theory that woman are the only ones that can experience fear and be consumed by fear. She uses this play to show otherwise.

In Orra, Baillie chooses to have a female protagonist consumed with her struggle of overcoming her fear and other passions that are fighting to consumer her. Following the Gothic tradition, Baillie uses a female protagonist to exemplify how woman are the main characters in Gothic literature to be seen in conflict with the power dynamics and in constant danger of "disrupting" the patriarchal system that is in place. By creating Orra, Baillie has used her character to be directly at odds with what a "traditional" Gothic story should follow. Orra becomes consumed with her fascination of the supernatural elements within the play. This obsession becomes her "tragic flaw" which eventually leads to the destructionof her character. In the introduction to Joanna Baillie's "Six Gothic Novels," Christine A. Colon states that, "rather than using these [Gothic] stories to learn to check her excessive passions, Orra uses them to inflame her passions, delighting in the physical sensations of fear that sourse through her body with every exciting ghost story" (xxvii).

Baillie goes further through discovering the underlying truths of the purpose of Orra's character. Baille uses Orra to show the disempowerment of woman and how little control they have over their own lives. Orra may be responsible for being consumed by the ghost stories, and for her inability to resist the temptations of giving into fear. However, it is the men in her life they should be held accountable for locking her away in a castle that is overflowing with the supernatural. Orra is used to represent a woman that is put back in her "domestic and submissive" place in society when she makes it evident that she does not want to marry. Her goal in life is to remain single, and to remain in full control over her assets. She falls victim to Hughobert, Glottenbal, and Theobald when she is forced to remain in confinement of the haunted castle for her refusal of marriage. Eventaully, she is forced to play the typical "damsel in distress" in order to be rescued by Theobald. Baillie uses this as a critique to show that woman are constantly made the victim of men. She is revealing the truth behind the desires of men. Men put woman in danger by not being able to control their own sexual desires. Orra is placed in danger because of masculine desire. Orra is forced into mentally breaking down and self-destructing because all of her outlets include a man. 

Discussion Questions:

1) How does Joanna Baillie version of the Gothic compare to the Radcliffe's version of the Gothic? Compare and contrast the female characters in Radcliffe and Baille's works?

2) If Gothic works are said to be "feminine" or "masculine," which would you categorize Baillie's work under? Why? What makes it this?

The Passions Revealed in Baillie's Drama

With a solid background knowledge of Baillie's dramatic intentions in "Introductory Discourse," we begin to see the passions manifest themselves throughout De Monfort. She declares, with zeal, "let one simple trait of the human heart, one expression of passion genuine and true to nature, be introduced, and it will stand forth alone in the boldness of reality, whilst the false and unnatural around it, fades away upon every side," (Introductory Discourse, 80). As readers, we start to wonder at and infer her true intentions behind writing the Plays on the Passions. Again she hints at her purpose when she says "the last play, the subject of which is hatred, will more clearly discover the nature and intention of my design... hatred is a passion of slow growth... that rooted and settled aversion, which... grows at last into such antipathy and personal disgust," (107-108).

Here, Baillie has laid out the design of her drama in the simplest terms understandable to the reader. Her hope is to portray the slow progression of hatred/rage in such a way that the audience can sympathize with. Here she illustrates her well-drawn map of human understanding in regards to the passions. She makes it very clear that the superstitious mind, and the frivolous workings of the social realm in regards to refinement and a suppression of the passions, are useless when it comes to human understanding and sympathy. She believes that only an honest depiction of the slow progression of the passions, in this case anger and jealousy, can properly portray human understanding.

Taking a closer look at the drama, we see De Monfort's hatred slowly manifest itself into psychosis. In his first soliloquy, act I scene II, he declares the workings of his own mind by projecting these feared qualities onto his enemy, Rezenvelt; "the venom of thy mind is rank and devilish/and thin the film that hides it," (17). This is the first we see of the inner workings of De Monfort's mind, and up to this point we have only witnessed superficial exchanges between the two characters, something Baillie would consider irrelevant to the passions. She introduces this discourse as the groundwork for the rest of her drama; where she begins with a dialogue that hints at the passions only on the surface, she ends with a portrayal of the passions at their height.

The final progression of hatred is shown at first in act IV scene II, when De Monfort, still sane, wonders "what am I grown? all things are hateful to me," (48). His final, irreversible state of completely consumed hatred is mentioned by Thomas at the monastery; "such a look, such wildness of despair, /such horror-strained features, never yet /did earthly visage show. I shrank and shudder'd. /if a damn'd spirit may to earth return, /I've seen it," (61). At this point, De Monfort has already committed the most hateful act of murder, and has lost all touch with reality or rationality. The slow progression of his hatred is made clear, and the audience can still easily sympathize with him.

There are countless examples and subtle cues that enlighten us, the readers, into the cold world of the darker passions. We know De Monfort to be considered a good man by the treatment from those around him; Jane, portrayed as a great lady, does not hesitate to forgive him, and our sympathy as readers allows us to forgive him for this heinous crime just as easily. We can see, in the conflict between Rezenvelt and himself, that De Monfort was merely a victim of the workings of his own mind, and nothing more. The only true conflict the two have ever held is rooted in the uncontrollable acquisition of wealth in Rezenvelt's early years. De Monfort's security in his esteem and his status is challenged the moment Rezenvelt acquires an equal wealth and status. I imagine he wonders, 'how can wealth and such a social refinement befall someone who possesses anything but these qualities?' In turn, De Monfort becomes consumed with jealousy and rage at Rezenvelt's successful use of wealth, and most of all his happiness. For why De Monfort cannot achieve the same level of comfort in his own estate, he cannot fathom.

These two characters are not the only ones in the play that embody a dramatic flaw of the passions. Countess Freberg is envious and jealous of lady Jane De Monfort for, again, insecure reasons, and because of this she creates the catalyst that eventually leads to Rezenvelt's death. Even the minor character Conrad, who has something to gain, is capable of those poisonous passions other writers have so often blamed on the supernatural/sublime.

**Two days ago, this play was performed in a staged reading at NYC's Red Bull Theater in a series called "Revalations Readings." The goal of this project is to bring alive those classic dramas our contemporary society has pushed to the back of the shelves. Such a psychologically based drama might excite modern audiences differently than those in Baillie's time. To read more about this play and its production, visit Broadway World. 

Discussion Questions

Aside from the above examples, in what ways do we see the subtle progression of De Monfort's rage reach a dangerous point? Why can/do we sympathize with him in these instances?

What other passions do each of the characters represent, and how are they manifested throughout the drama?

When are moments of superficial exchanged implemented, and how are they effective? Are these significant to our overall understanding of the piece?