A Monster Born or Made: Disability and Physiognomy in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein

Katie Curtis

Westminster College
 Curtis 1

Introduction

The rise in disability studies and theoretical approaches to depictions of the body has

brought into conversation the idea of the monstrous body as well as the disabled body. This

has, in turn, brought the inherent fear of the disabled body into more discussions of disability and

analysis of popular literature such as Mary Shelleys Frankenstein. However, the fear of

disabilities as a form of otherness has been a constant in society that has defied the standards

of trends or phasesotherness, in this analysis, being defined as the quality, perceived or

otherwise, of being different (Clarke 96; Codr 172; Juengel 354; Lacom 547, 549; Wang 475).

Disability is unanimously paired with traits of otherness, creating a distress for able-bodied

members of normative society over the differences present in those living outside the ideals or

expectations of normative (standard or correct) society. Normative society is threatened by

individuals with disabilities and the characteristics that they display, characteristics that are

erroneously feared as being contagious, grotesque, or wrong. It is this fear and the

perceived threat to normative values that influences people to make assumptions about or

become prejudiced towards individuals living with disabilities.

The backlash of that fear is concentrated on the people with disabilities themselves. They

must face rejection from an unaccepting society that results from their differences (disabilities)

being unnatural or wrong. Mary Shelley characterizes this experience of people with

disabilities in her novel Frankenstein. Though her creature is not labeled as having any

disabilityin fact he is marked by a remarkable, even super-human, degree of ability and it is

only his appearance that suggests disabilityhe is treated with the same fear, the same disdain

and rejection that are projected upon people with disabilities. Even Victor Frankenstein, the
 Curtis 2

creatures maker, rejects his hideous, deformed child (Shelley 50). The rejection the creature

feels pushes him to commit horrendous acts of violence and to seek out his creator for answers

and the treatment that he feels he is owed.

In this project, I will analyze academic critiques of Frankenstein. By focusing my

attention on this work, I will have the opportunity to investigate its characterizations of the

monstrous and how these characterizations have reflected societal perceptions of disabled bodies.

I will analyze Shelleys text and the problem it presents to the audience about identity and how

identity is established. I will delve into the idea that this problem hinges on the removal of voices

that exist outside the binaries of normative society, a society that discards compassion for

disabled bodies. While the differences expressed by the creature and by disabled bodies should

not, morally, set them apart in society or damage their identities, their differences do set them

apart. The monstrous threatens the norms of society. It suggests that not everyone adheres to the

same traits and expectations. Shelley, though, tries to characterize the monstrous in two ways.

She wants to capitalize on the revulsion against the creature to show societal perceptions of the

monstrous, but she also wants to create empathy for the creature to encourage her audience to

rethink those perceptions. Through my analysis, I will determine whether she can truly have it

both ways or whether she can only be successful in creating one type of reception in her

audience. I will then show that Shelley, unfortunately, cannot successfully characterize disability

in these two ways simultaneously. Despite presenting opportunities for her audience to feel

empathy towards the creature, Shelley is only able to succeed in emphasizing the creatures

monstrosity.

Like people living with disabilities, the creature in Frankenstein is subject to the

knowledge that people fear him for circumstances that are entirely out of his control. The
 Curtis 3

creature was created without the luxury of determining his traits, nature, or abilities (Lamb 303).

John Lamb, just one of many critics who have analyzed Shelley, highlights the fact that the

creature had no control over his creation and he parallels this with Miltons Adam in Paradise

Lost. Not only does the creature in Frankenstein have to face cruel attitudes toward a nature he

has been born with, but he must also face a society that has already defined him and his

physicality as grotesque or monstrous. There is no chance for the creature to control his own

nature, let alone control how he will be defined in society (Lamb 304-305). The society imagined

and characterized by Shelley has already decided how he will be perceived based on their

stigmas and prejudices.

Shelleys novel reflects early 19th century fears and conceptions of disabilities and the

disabled body. Historically, as is characterized in Shelleys text, disabilities have consistently

been feared, avoided, and even hidden. In the 1800s people with disabilities were segregated

from the general public in what was deemed a merciful action, which served to keep these

people invisible and hidden from a fearful and biased society (A Brief History of the Disability

Rights Movement). As we see in Shelleys text, this is exactly what Victor Frankenstein does

with his creation upon seeing him for the first time. He immediately shuts it away and runs

(Shelley 35). Through her text, Shelley argues for the wrongness of Victors act by characterizing

how this reaction promotes the creature to become vicious or monstrous. However, this

argument raises questions as to the extent to which the novel supports and challenges

conceptions of disability. In the course of this analysis, I will answer these questions using

theories of disability and textual evidence from Shelleys novel.

Today, people with disabilities are not blatantly stowed away into poorhouses or cruel

institutions in the way they were in the early nineteenth century. However, society still runs from

the discomfort disabled individuals present just as Victor runs away from his creation. Disabled

individuals are now completely present in society, but are entirely invisible because they are

avoided, feared, and treated with an attitude that values the idea that if we pretend disability or

differences arent there, then with relief they go away. It is easier for society to pretend issues of

disability dont exist or that they can be cured by just being normal. Unfortunately, literature

then simply becomes an effect of its social context and is unable to affect real change in the

attitudes people hold. Shelleys text is no different. The society she lived in influenced how and

why she wrote Frankenstein and though she tries to break through the barriers of normative

ideals, she is unable to do more than make a few cracks in the structure of those ideals.

My project will analyze depictions of the monstrousas defined in the Oxford

English Dictionary as very wrong, ugly or vicious and strange or unnaturalin how it

describes disabled bodies within literature, specifically within Mary Shelleys Frankenstein, and

what these depictions say about how society views disability and disabled bodies. Mikhail

Bakhtin describes the monstrous and the grotesque as essentially degradation (Dentith 65).

However, he uses this definition in a positive tone rather than a negative one. He explains that

degradation and therefore monstrosity are processes of regeneration and renewal, linking them to

Renaissance attitude towards life (Dentith 65-66). This definition in contrast to the vague, base

one gives a new interpretation of the function of disability and of the Shelleys creature in

society, which we will explore more extensively throughout this essay. I will be using a disability

lens to then guide my analysis of Frankenstein; I will also use a number of works that re-

envision Frankenstein, disability, and modern representations of Shelleys original text to aid in
 Curtis 5

my analysis, including films such as Edward Scissorhands and Freaks. These works will provide

me with a grounding in the connections Shelleys characters make with modern interpretations of

disability. By analyzing the connections between Frankenstein and the stigmas, experiences, and

characteristics of disability, I will determine why and how theories of physiognomy and

inheritance are used to define the monstrous in relation to disabled bodies within literature. I will

specifically look at how these theories reflect the ideals/norms of society and what these

depictions mean for the future of disability. In this project I will argue that the depiction of the

creature in this way violent, monstrous, wrong in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein represents

societys perceptions of disabled bodies and the effect theories of physiognomy and inheritance

had on these perceptions toward people with disabilities. Theories of physiognomy and

inheritance created fear over the differences these bodies signified and what violent acts those

differences could encourage disabled individuals to commit.

Critical Analyses of Frankenstein

The conversation surrounding Frankenstein has produced many notable claims and

theories about the novels textual merits. However, many of these critics have failed to consider

that Frankenstein is less of a tale about the fear of physical diseases and more about the

perceptions society has about disability. Fuson Wang in his article Romantic Disease Discourse:

Disability, Immunity, and Literature suggests that Shelley is addressing nineteenth century

anxieties about vaccinations, specifically for small pox (Wang 473). Alternatively, Dwight Codr

argues in his article Arresting Monstrosity: Polio, Frankenstein, and the Horror Film that later

film interpretations of the Frankenstein story are rooted in addressing the anxieties of polio in the

1930s. Both of these arguments make claims about Shelleys text. However, how disability is

perceived is less a matter of contagion, immunity, or inoculation, but rather one of inheritance
 Curtis 6

and nurturing, specifically, the idea that disability is inherited through families. Shelley is

exposing these nineteenth century notions of disability and arguing that whether or not disability

is inherited, the actions of the creature do not reflect that inheritance. They are brought on by

Victors method of nurturing, or lack thereof. Had the creature been properly taught and cared

for, his malicious attitude would not have developed as it does when Victor flees from the sight

of his creation (Shelley 104).

A modern interpretation of the Frankenstein story that follows this reasoning and

societys fears of disabled bodies is the 1990s film Edward Scissorhands. Julie Clarke suggests

that the cuts on Edward Scissorhands face, whether they are there accidentally or purposefully,

are Edwards own internal rejection of his disabled body (Clarke). The difference between

Edward Scissorhands and Frankenstein is that Edward is nurtured and accepted by nearly every

person he meetsincluding by his creator, whom he refers to as his father (Edward

Scissorhands 1990). However, though he is nurtured and accepted, by the conclusion of the film

he is rejected and forced to spend his life alone in his fathers housecompletely cut off from

society (Edward Scissorhands 1990). This cycle in society, which always settles back to its

starting pointrejectionexplains why, despite her efforts to reverse disability standards,

Shelley continues to circle back to the standards of normative society. Though society is not right

in rejecting either character (Edward and the creature), rejection becomes unavoidable for them.

The continued rejection of both Edward and the creature are rooted in the same perceived

disabilities, which are physical characteristics or features of the disabled body. The creatures

appearance represents the same level of disability as Edwards does because his grotesque

appearance separates him from the rest of society. The creatures appearance in Frankenstein is

described as having yellow skin [that] scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries
 Curtis 7

beneathhair of lustrous blacka more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed

almost of the same colour as the dun-white socketsshriveled complexion and straight black

lips (Shelley 35). His patchwork body appears innately monstrous because it indexes his origin.

The very fact that Victor Frankenstein used not only human flesh, but the animal flesh he found

in charnel houses anddissecting room (Shelley 33), that he mixed species to create one being

is monstrous to the ideals and standards of normative society (cf. Wang). Despite the creatures

attractive characteristics, lustrous black hair and white teeth, his disturbing appearance inspired

not only Frankensteins rejection of the creature he created, but societys rejection of the creature

as well. This is a result of not one single characteristic on its own, but the contrast the creatures

appealing features make with his monstrous ones. The contrast these characteristics make with

each other fuels the rejection we see take place in Shelleys novel and exemplifies the early

Christian and scientific notion of physiognomy.

Physiognomy expresses the idea that the inherent faults or character of a person are

represented on the body. Physiognomy was a popular concept in the eighteenth century and early

nineteenth century and was discussed among many disciplines, including academics, physiology,

medicine, and religion. A component of this idea is that the moral faults of an individuals

character are marked on the body as a signal to others of the persons true character.

Physiognomy was widely accepted in Christian circles and Christian doctrine influenced

perceptions of disabled bodies. Although the idea goes back to ancient medical theory, Protestant

pastor Johann Kaspar Lavater is considered the founder of physiognomics and was a proponent

of this concept throughout his life, writing many pieces about its validity in determining the

character or sins of people (Johann Kaspar Lavater). Victor Frankensteins sin is to create life,

human or otherwise, without the power of God; man was not meant to wield such power.
 Curtis 8

Therefore, by defying this order, Victor Frankenstein commits an ultimate sin against his own

creator (cf. Juengel, cf. Lamb). The monstrosity of that sin is represented on the grotesque and

monstrous body of the creature. However, the creature comes into being, he is as innocent as a

newborn child. He has committed no sin and yet he becomes the epitome of Frankensteins sins,

in the eyes of both Frankenstein and the society that rejects him. The problem with this is that

according to the definition of physiognomics, Victors sins should appear on his body rather than

the creatures. Why does Shelley alter the functions of the theory of physiognomy?

I argue that Shelleys motive in breaking away from the common functions of

physiognomy is to show the faults in this explanation of human nature. Shelley shows Victors

faults through the creature because an imperfect, rejected, monstrous being shows more

accurately Victors immoral state of mind and the faults in his reasoning. In doing so, she

attempts to foreground the absurdity of physiognomy and the perceptions it influences about the

character of the disabled body. People with disabilities experience this same problem with the

theory of physiognomy. Though they have committed no sins when they are born into the world,

they are treated as immoral bodies that are inherently wrong and monstrous despite the true

nature of these individuals (Wang 475). It is critical to the deconstruction of normative ideals to

break down the idea that disabled bodies are monstrous or representations of past and present

sins. Shelley shows us that the creature was inherently innocent: he did not come into the world

with malicious intent or a vicious conviction. It is, therefore, unjust to mark the creature in this

fashion and, even further, to judge the disabled according to their appearance, for which they are

not morally culpable.

Definitions of Normal and Abnormal

In order to understand the conceptions of disability reflected in Shelleys text and in

normative society, it is necessary to recognize the boundaries of these normal/abnormal binaries

created within normative society. We must also analyze Shelleys text for evidence of how the

creature represents progress in reclaiming the notion of disability. We can then recognize one

view of normative society by looking at Cindy Lacoms argument. In her argument, she claims

that the normal/abnormal binaries society has developed are false. She argues that disability is

everywhere and the perceptions of disability have therefore developed out of capitalism and an

obsession with empire-building (Lacom 547). However, I will argue that disability does exist

primarily within these specific binaries. We are not limit[ing] ourselves, as Lacom states, by

understanding that this is the realm within which disability lives (547).

What Lacom fails to understand in her argument is that society has been around long

before capitalism or empire-building. Notions about what is normal and what is abnormal

have existed as long as conscious thought in humans has existed. Nicole Markotic applies this

notion in her article when she discusses disability as defined by the word freak. Markotic

writes, The term accurately conveys a history that has enfreaked disabled or differently abled

bodiesthus the word freak stresses that which both emphasizes and dismisses so-called

atypical bodies (Markotic 65). As we see in Frankenstein, Markotics article, and Lacoms

piece, humans feed off the ability to determine boundaries and groupings of people. Doing so

creates order within communities for the normative society and gives control to those who decide

what those boundaries, binaries, and notions should be (Markotic 359; Wang 468, 473).

However, contrary to Lacoms views on the fluidity of boundaries of disability, these

normal/abnormal binaries are not to be overlooked, but taken seriously because the normative

society takes them seriously, whether that is morally right or wrong.

The reactions to and treatments of the creature are influenced by the notions of disabled

or differently abled bodies of the normative society in which Shelley herself lived. Therefore, to

agree with Lacoms dismissal of the binaries of disability would be to contradict Shelleys

critique in Frankenstein of the reaction to and treatment of the creatures physical body. These

two societies, Shelleys and the texts, are ultimately one and the same, and disregarding the

impact these societies have on attitudes toward disability minimizes the progress in reclaiming

the notion of (dis)ability and the monstrous that the creature represents. In one instance of this

attempt to reclaim or redefine the notions and attitudes toward (dis)ability and the monstrous, the

creature appeals to Victors emotions. He tries to reach his father on a level of compassion and

responsibility. The creature implores Victor to:

Remember, that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom

thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably

excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again

be virtuous (Shelley 69).

The bond between parent and child can be ripped apart when one discards the other. The creature

in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein experiences the horror of being unwanted when his creator or

father rejects him. This relationship is mirrored in society with normative values and traits of

disability when potential bonds are torn as society sets values for normativity that exclude

individuals with traits existing outside those values. The creature, in this passage, embodies

these internal struggles between parent and child and between normative society and disability.

The scene above takes place when Frankenstein is hiking on a glacier. He is surprised

while he is alone in thought by the creature he created, who proceeds to confront him about

Frankensteins rejection of him. The creature implores Frankenstein to remember, that I am thy

creature, in the hopes that he will have some semblance of compassion towards him (Shelley
 Curtis 11

69). The creature does not just want Frankenstein to give him what he is owed, though he claims

this as his reason, but wants primarily to be recognized for being Frankensteins creature. The

creature is looking for any one individual, especially his creator, to acknowledge that he is a true

being, human enough to receive and give acceptancedespite the circumstances of his creation.

It is essential for the creature to feel accepted, even loved by Frankenstein. Children look

to their parents as their first example to explain to them what they are, who they are, and why

they are here. The creature reflects a child in this sense: he is new to the world and looking for a

way to navigate the rules and systems of the culture he is cast into. The parent that would

traditionally provide the navigational directions to him should be Frankenstein, but he shirks that

role by creating his creature and then abandoning him to the world. It is the aberration of the

abandonment that the creature is imploring Frankenstein to rethink. The creature is attempting to

appeal to Frankenstein when he asks him to remember that he is Frankensteins. Frankenstein

designed him, created him; without him, the creature would not exist. It is devastating for the

creature to recognize that the one who made his life would, now, rather have that life removed

from the earth. Physically, in species or appearance, the creature and Frankenstein are the same.

They are, however, separated from each other and from the connection of being human, which

they cannot share because of the nature of the creatures birth. This attitude is akin to what is

experienced by individuals existing outside the norm of society. Individuals existing within the

norm, however, do not see the nature of their fears or their revulsion towards difference itself.

The desire to mentally and physically shrink away from difference emerges from the desire to

distinguish what is human from what is monstrous.

Despite Shelley never naming him, only using monstrous titles, such as creature,

daemon, thing, etc., the creature is biologically human, but is associated with being a
 Curtis 12

monster because he is created by man not God and, therefore, is not a natural being. While the

creature may not specifically fall under the human category, he is an intelligent creature

nonetheless and it is this that he seeks recognition for. He references Milton when he claims that

he ought to be thy Adam, butam rather the fallen angel (Shelley 69).

Here, the creature is showing his familiarity with the popular text, Paradise Lost by John

Milton. By knowing this text, he is relating his intelligence to Frankenstein by attempting to

connect with him intellectually. By referring to himself as both Adam and the fallen angel, the

creature connects the text to his own experiences, displaying the ability to see and interpret

metaphors. This is a subtle tool designed to show Frankenstein that the creature may appear

different, but he possesses the same intellect as a normal man and therefore can fit in with

the society around him. Individuals with disabilities often are forced into fitting the mold of

normalcy cast by the majority of society. Regardless of the absurdity of requiring each person to

settle into a single mold, normativity insists that any traits of difference be subdued or rejected to

make way for the appearance of sameness (Chivers 58-59; Markotic 65). Referencing Paradise

Lost is not only for the benefit of showing Frankenstein the creatures intellect, but primarily to

give the creature something he can use to understand his own experiences.

The creature uses the story of Satan to give him a center of relatability for his life. He is

the sole recipient of this new system for creating life and, therefore, he does not have any being

to relate to or to draw understanding from for his situation. He feels instinctually the unfairness

in his situation and believes that reversing that unfairness will make what he experiences worth it

or, at the very least, bearable. His experience with Miltons text is a cleverly calculated decision

on Shelleys part. Specifically, because she uses Paradise Lost, from which the creature learns

how to speak English, to give the creature the explanations for the condition of his life as well as
 Curtis 13

the articulation to express his desire for the reversal of that condition. Miltons text puts the

creature on the same intellectual field as Frankenstein, which is vital to breaking down societys

stereotypes concerning the intellect of disabled people. Unfortunately, Shelley is not able to

emphasize this challenge to normative standards strongly enough and the creatures intellect does

not move Frankenstein or, arguably, the audience.

The creature first encounters the text by listening to a small family read it aloud and from

this develops intelligent and eloquent speech (Shelley 79-81). Not only does he learn to acquire

language, but he learns about the dynamics of God and Satan, which he mirrors in himself and

Frankenstein. This dynamic stresses even further to the creature the weight of Frankensteins

rejection of him. Frankenstein, being characterized as a normal character in the text, is creating

the normal/abnormal binary himself by labeling the creature, before anyone else, as abnormal

through his rejection of him. The creature is not able to see this clearly until being exposed to

Miltons text. Before this exposure the creature is still of the belief that knowledge might enable

[him] to make them overlook the deformity of [his] figure (Shelley 80). The creatures illusion

is shattered when he realizes that his own creator has placed him in a binary that dictates the way

others will perceive him because of his decided abnormality. Frankenstein is there when the

creature seeks him out to confront him about this decisive labeling, but refuses to hear his pleas

for acceptance. The creature desperately tries to make his father see that he deserves

Frankensteins attention and acknowledgment of his existence. The creature does not entreat

Frankenstein to give him everything or even to love him, simply to give fair acknowledgement

that he is a creature not conceived out of evil intent. He wants to have the good in him known,

understood.
 Curtis 14

Unfortunately, Frankenstein chooses not to recognize the creatures inherent possibility

for goodness and goes as far as to take any possible joy the creature could experience from him.

The creature recognizes this and questions Frankenstein for rejecting him personally and for

causing the world to reject him. He reminds Frankenstein of this when he says, I am rather the

fallen angel, whom though drivest from joy for no misdeed (Shelley 69). The very concept of a

man creating a being without the hand of God was unspeakable in the early 1800s, even

blasphemous. By creating the creature, Victor Frankenstein defied the laws of religion and God

and therefore, destined the creature to be hated by all for the very nature of his life. Frankenstein

set him up for an existence in which he would be despised and feared. At the very least he should

have had the care and acceptance of one human, the one who created him. Except once the

creature was in the world, Frankenstein turned on him and decided he didnt want the daemon

(Shelley 68) anymore. Scott Juengel addresses a possible explanation for Frankensteins

dismissal of the creature. He suggests that to gaze on [the creature] is to participate in an

endless visual reconstruction of the monstrous body. Perhaps this is why we turn away, for

ultimately the myth of Frankenstein is a cautionary tale against such replication (Juengel 354).

Juengel is suggesting that this reconstruction is the action of repeatedly seeing the monstrosities

of a persons body and placing an emphasis on those monstrosities that then are noticed

(replicated) or imagined on other bodies. This creates a standard of viewing that observes every

flaw of a persons body to establish (reconstruct) if such a flaw is monstrous or abnormal in

nature. Shelley is criticizing this reconstruction of the monstrous body. While she does not hide

the brutality heaped upon others by the creature, she creates empathy for the creature and his

plight to his creator.

Shelley wants to inspire in her readers a sense of compassion and an acceptance of

differently abled persons. She argues against the instinct or inherent nature to reconstruct the

monstrous body and to shy away from the physical image of that monstrous body. Even more,

this is an argument against the influence of the theory of physiognomy. The creatures physical

appearance does not determine his nature or his character. Yet the nature of his creation and his

appearance completely alienates the creature from the world. That alienation can be seen when

the creature laments, Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded

(Shelley 69). He is left to take refuge in the wilderness, places that no man dares inhabit.

Unfortunately, the creature has no power to affect or reverse his rejection from society. He did

not ask to be created, he was not given a choice in how or what form his creation took place. Yet

he is held accountable for his existence and forced to navigate life without the advantage of a

caregiver or friend.

The threat of accountabilitywhere accountability cannot be establishedis a struggle

that all persons with disabilities face. They are challenged for simply being born, despite having

had no control over the circumstances of their birth. The creature is a representation of the

internal fight between the desire to fit in with the values of society, family, parents and the need

to be understood without conditions or reservations. Disabilities are isolators in society just as

the creatures appearance and birth are isolators. Frankenstein represents the factors that

further isolate individuals living outside the norm, such as family, ability, or gender. The creature

claims that he will be good, virtuous if Frankenstein only agrees to understand the creature.

Not only do the creatures promises of goodness show his desire for acceptance, but they

also show Shelleys defiance against the traditional conceptions of physiognomy. As I have

addressed, the main function of the theory is that the character of a person is marked upon the
 Curtis 16

body (Juengel 357). Shelley shows through the creatures promises of goodness that his character

is inherently true. However, according to those conceptions of physiognomy, this is wrong. The

creatures physical appearance should parallel a monstrous and repulsive character; however, that

is not what Shelley wants her readers to see. She is breaking the mold of what society establishes

as normal and abnormal, even more so considering the early nineteenth-century world in

which she wrote her novel. While the creature is grotesque in appearance, it is good in nature and

character. Nevertheless, the creature receives the brunt of societys rejection and fear rather than

the being whose sins are truly at fault for the condition of the creatures bodyVictor

Frankenstein. Frankenstein worked tirelessly to create his creature and had specifically chosen

each part of his structure to be harmonious and beautiful (Shelley 59; Juengel 357). Yet, as stated

by Juengel, that beauty can in a single horrifying instant, become wretched (357). Frankenstein

turns away from his creature because the beauty he had intended, in his eye, turned revolting and

monstrous.

The sin of creating a being without the hand of God as well as the sinor faultof then

abandoning his creation are the monstrosities of Frankensteins own character. To show that

societys notion of disability and physiognomy are flawed, Shelley marks those monstrosities on

the creatures body instead. Shelley breaking the traditional pattern of physiognomy shows

societys flawed notions because it reverses the standard that normal/abnormal binaries are

defined by what is monstrous and what is not, which is also traditionally defined in society

through physiognomy. However, to then reverse that pattern upends societys foundational rule

that what is monstrous is ugly or hideous and what is normal is beautiful or physically pleasant.

The creature himself does not understand these notions of good versus monstrous. He

does not think of peoples character in terms of physical appeal. He wants only to be invited into
 Curtis 17

society, to be allowed to exist without the barriers of normative values and without the bonds of

physiognomy. The creature believes if he is good, then Frankenstein will change how he sees

him. He cannot believe that Frankenstein will not hear his plea and agree to care for him as the

creature wishes. Unfortunately, because of the ideas set by physiognomy, this is an attitude that

cannot be indulged in society and it leaves the creature irrevocably excluded from societys

grace. Physiognomy has led society to develop even further fears and concerns. Society fears that

disabilities and grotesqueness are a result of heritable or infectious traits, which determines the

isolation of people that show peculiarities of any kind that could be defined as a disability. This

belief creates fear that disability can then be passed on to others or passed down through

families. Therefore, people with disabilities are shunned because of their differences, feared for

the threat of catching the traits they exhibit (Lacom 548, cf. Juengel). Ultimately, though these

ideas influence and invade Shelleys work, they are uselessly contrary upon the realization that

the creature cannot reproduce at all. It cannot pass on its monstrosities, neither can it have

inherited any of its monstrous traits from another because it was built not born.

Frankensteins Isolation

In order to understand his reasons for rejecting the creature, we have to understand the

way Victor Frankenstein isolates himself. The isolation he experiences during the preparation of

his creature develops a sense of guilt in Frankenstein, guilt that gnaws at his human nature.

Therefore, when the creature is finally animated, Frankensteins ambitions and the guilt that is

now associated with them boiled to the surface and he flees in revolt and fear of what he has

done. However, rather than acknowledging this, it is easier for him to attribute these stirrings of

guilt to a mere disgust in the horrid creature that lay before him. It is because of this
 Curtis 18

displacement of guilt that Victor Frankenstein has no trouble excluding his creation from his

presence just as society would eventually do when faced with the creature.

Nor does Frankenstein have any trouble completely isolating himself from society while

preparing and completing his experiment:

Winter, spring, and summer passed away during my labours; but I did not watch the blossoms or

the expanding leavessights which before always yielded me supreme delightso deeply was I

engrossed in my occupation. The leaves had withered before my work drew to a close (Shelley

34).

A sense of determination exists within this passage of Frankensteins thoughts. He is so set on his

mission to create life that he misses the small luxuries in the life already around him, such as

watching the leaves grow or seeing the flowers blossom. However, in this passage there is more

than just determinationthere is isolation and gloom. Frankensteins determination caused him

to be entirely consumed by his experiment to the point that he cut himself off from his family, the

publicin effect the entire outside worldironically, in the same way that he then will cut the

creature off from the entirety of society and himself (the only family the creature knows). It is no

less than cruel for Frankenstein to bestow on his creature the same isolation and gloom he felt

while preparing his creation, isolation and gloom which Frankenstein blames the creature for

when, in fact, Frankenstein has accomplished such feelings without a single outside influence

(Shelley 35-36). Frankenstein even acknowledges in his work that he feels he ought to quit such

a project, but feels he cannot help, but to go on (Shelley 33). It is clear by following

Frankensteins own pattern of reasoning that he has no one to credit for his misery other than

himself.

However, how Frankenstein came to be miserable is not the root of the problem with his

character, but in his cruelty in passing on his misery to the creature he devoted such energy and
 Curtis 19

commitment to prior to his animation. Mary Shelleys husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley,

commented on this in a short response he wrote to Frankenstein. He commented, Nor are the

crimes and malevolence of the single Being the offspring of any unaccountable propensity to

evil, but flow irresistibly from certain causes fully adequate to their production (Shelley, 185-

86). Shelley was receptive to the message his wife was portraying in her novel. He understood

that the focus was not meant to be on the creatures viciousness, but rather the birthplace of that

viciousness. He addresses the where in the assertion that it cannot be by the fault of the

creature that he is malevolent and commits heinous acts, but in truth it is the fault or result of the

circumstances of the creatures production. It was, after all, Frankensteinnot the creature

himselfwho cast the creature into misery by his rejection and prompted the creature to become

violent in his isolation. Shelley goes on to stress that one has only to treat a person ill, and he

will become wicked. Requite affection with scorn. and you impose upon him the irresistible

obligationsmalevolence and selfishness (185-86).

In this comment Shelley addresses the why of the creatures behavior and attitude.

Acceptance does not breed monstrosity, though rejection may be enough to condemn an

individual to acts of monstrosity. The point both Shelleys are making is that it is through the

reaction of Frankenstein toward his own creation that condemns the creature to monstrosity.

Had Frankenstein reacted differently upon the animation of the creature, there is evidence to

suggest that the creature would have been benevolent and content.

Shelleys assertions can be paralleled with social interactions with people who are

disabled or differently abled; however, both of the Shelleys assertions or messages can be

contrasted with the claims made by Nicole Markotic regarding a film that raises similar ideas.

Markotic, analyzing the 1932 film Freaks, notes that the traditional bodies viewed as hideous
 Curtis 20

and evil are, in the film, reversed in that they are cast as innocent victims and Markotic argues

that it is this depiction that causes audiences to reevaluate societal beliefs and prejudices (67). If

Shelleys purpose in her novel was to accomplish the same end as the film Freaks does, then why

is it that the creature is viewed as hideous, frightening, and a threatin simple terms, a monster?

Why doesnt her message sink in? Why does the audience miss the inherent innocence of the

creature and ignore the imposed violent behavior the creature develops due to Frankensteins

rejection?

Though Shelleys character, the creature, is portrayed as violentwith small glimpses

into the creatures benevolent natureit is the rejection that separates the way Shelleys message

is received from the way the message of the film Freaks is received by their audiences.

Acceptance is achieved only when people can see others as themselves. In the film, the

normies, those who work in the circus and are not defined as freaks, are accepted into the

community of the freaks as one of their own. This is the difference between Freaks and

Frankenstein. The creature in Shelleys text does not have his own community. He is the only

one of his kind and is never able to find relatability in those with which he interacts. He is never

accepted, though he tries. He advocates to Frankenstein to make him a mate so he may have

community and acceptance. However, at the last moment, Frankenstein destroys the mate he has

created for the creature. This act shatters any possibility at Shelley gleaning from her audience

the same reception the film gleans from its audience.

The Creatures Protectors

Now that we understand the influence Frankensteins isolation had on his interaction with

society and the creatures own development, we will look at the effect the creatures outside

environment had on his development. The creatures personal experiences with society in the
 Curtis 21

time he spent away from Frankenstein was a critical time in developing his identity and where he

fit in the world. Though Frankenstein was the beginning and the largest proponent of the

creatures isolation and rejection, it was also his interactions with members of society that

encourage the rejection the creature first experiences with Frankenstein. One of the most critical

experiences he has is with a small family that lives in a humble hut on the outskirts of a village,

which the creature was driven out of by the villagers. He has observed this family for weeks,

building a connection to them in his own mindthough they are unaware of that connection or

that someone was watching their daily liveseven referring to them as my family (Shelley 82)

and his protectors (Shelley 86). The connection he builds with this family comes from

similarities to himself which he observes in them:

They were not entirely happy. The young man and his companion often went apart, and

appeared to weep. I saw no cause for their unhappiness; but I was deeply affected by it. If

such lovely creatures were miserable, it was less strange that I, an imperfect and solitary

being, should be wretched. Yet why were these gentle beings unhappy? (Shelley 77).

The shock the creature feels at the familys misery is critical to how he identifies with himself

and those around him. Observing that individuals who have so much more than him have fallen

into the same unhappiness gives him a foundation of comparison, even if he does not quite

understand it and even questions it. He can now relate to these creatures that up to this point in

his life have only treated him with fear and disdain. He can relate to their feelings of despair over

their situation and circumstances. The creature is given a gift, in a way, because he now

understands himself better. He does not feel as alone in his isolation and can use their misery as a

potential explanation for why he himself is experiencing misery. He is aware of his feelings of

misery, but due to a lack of education as to how to explain those feelings he is left in ignorance.
 Curtis 22

His observation of the family relieves his ignorance. They give him hope that he is not utterly

alone, as he has been since his conception, which we see when he marvels it was less strange

that I. should be wretched (77).

Comparing the creatures isolation experience with Frankensteins isolation experience

gives insight into what is truly monstrous. The creature does not become isolated by choice. He

is forced into it simply for his attempts to interact with others and the fear that then results from

his physical appearance. His only desire is to know and have relationships with other people; he

is consistently seeking to be a member of society. A completely different picture appears when

looking at Frankensteins isolation. His is entirely by choice. He is the one to distance himself

from his family, friends, and colleagueschoosing to become enveloped in his project. Rather

than confiding in and finding solace in other humans, he surrounded himself with the dead matter

of animals, humans, and nature. It is necessarily to ask at this point who is truly monstrous of the

two? The one who is constantly seeking to fit into the norm, to belong, and to interact, or the one

who actively rejects and turns away from society and its members? Society would naturally favor

the first and label the second as the monstrous one. Therefore, by societys standards of

favorability the creature would be the normal one and Frankenstein would prove to be the

monstrous one. Unfortunately, Shelley is subtle in the way she presents this reversal of societys

perceptions and, therefore, the connection and the relation to this family that the creature feels

doesnt last.

Revealing his presence destroys the illusion the creature holds of these people as his

protectors and as his pseudo-family. The moment the creature enters the familys physical world

he is rejected and feared in the same way that he was by Frankenstein and by the villagers he

encounters. This moment is utterly devastating for the creature. In his mind, he has inserted
 Curtis 23

himself into those lives through these daily observations and therefore has convinced himself

that the family has become connected to him in the process of the creature connecting himself to

them. Therefore, when he reveals himself and is feared by the very people who he has revered in

his mind, it destroys the illusion he created. The creature does not possess the knowledge or

experience to understand that people who look different are different, and that is why we.

are and should be afraid of them (Markotic 67). However, it is through this experience that he

begins to understand those social prejudices that govern the world he has blindly been thrown

into. The experience the creature has with this family forms his sense of individuality and

identity.

Conclusion

The creatures identity and individuality is built upon the fears and judgements of the

society he exists in, causing the creature to have a distorted image of who he is. He sees fault in

himself because he is not like any of the people he has interacted with and because he creates

fear with his physical appearance. Social prejudices suppress the creatures individuality in that

he possesses an individual countenance and situation that separates him from the rest of society.

In the creatures case, individuality is not held in a positive regard. Rather, the individualitythe

differencesof the creature stresses a quality in him that stretches the bounds of normativity. By

doing this, society cannot accept the creature as he is because his individuality does not fit into

the standards of what is normal.

Ulf Houe, a critic of the societal functions within Shelleys text, does not agree with the

views Shelleys textual society has on individuality and quotes claims by William Lawrence to

express this. Houe uses Lawrences claim that variety and individuality is a given in Natureit

cannot be avoided (Houe 106-107). He claims that each human being has something
 Curtis 24

distinguishing, in form, proportions, countenance, gesture, voicein feelings, thought, and

temper; in mental as well as corporeal physiognomy. This variety is the source of everything

beautiful and interesting in the external world (107). If society were to follow, as Houe does,

Lawrences idea of individuality, then the creatures differences would have been readily

accepted. He would have received the reaction he was looking for in the family he silently claims

as his own and he would have been brought into the warmth of their lives. However, by this

reasoning, the creature may never have even met the family because he would not have been first

cast aside by Frankenstein, which would have meant that his need to survive on his own would

not have led him to the solemn little family he discovers. Unfortunately, this is not what happens.

We cannot base our reasoning on the claims of Lawrence or Houe. While this Utopian idea,

presented by Lawrence and Houe, is appealing for its simplicity, societyboth the one Shelley

lived in and the one she mirrored in her noveldoes not function within such simple standards.

Characteristics of disability are not as pure as Lawrences idea of variety and individuality.

The normal/abnormal binaries do not allow for his ideals, but rather force upon individuals

with disabilities a structure and system which they are expected to fit into, even when it is

impossible to do so.

As with individuals with disabilities, the creatures inability to fit into societys structure

of normality comes down to his body and his physical appearance. This is a direct result, as

weve seen, of the theories of physiognomy and inheritance, which have informed the binaries

society developed for centuries. The creatures inability to gain acceptance from those he

encounters and, more importantly, from Frankenstein himself is a consequence of the affect

physiognomy, notions of disability, and perceptions of the monstrous have had on the way the
 Curtis 25

creature is then perceived. Using Shelleys text as a foundation, we can understand the standards

that suppress individuals with disabilities.

Ultimately, it is unreasonable to blame the society or Victor in Frankenstein for the

rejection of the creature. Nor is it reasonable to blame the creature for the violent misdeeds that

he commits in response to the rejection he experiences. However, the events of the text take

place at Shelleys hand. While she is able to challenge singular functions of society, the

contradictions in her writing overshadow the progress Shelley attempts to make. Shelley creates

a being that is different grotesquewhen held up to the standards of normative society. She

attempts to create empathy for that isolated being, and even succeeds in some moments, but she

is unable to make her argument cleanly because of the steps she takes to make her being fit into a

monstrous ideal. I cant argue that her writing isnt progressive, especially for the time period in

which she wrote it, or that her attempts were in vain (otherwise I wouldnt be discussing her text

in this very moment). However, she doesnt take her argument quite far enough. As it is for

everyone, it is difficult for Shelley to shake the idea that disabled bodies are instinctually

monstrous. In the end, she could not remove the affect this normative idea had on her writing or

on her audience.
 Curtis 26

Bibliography

Bernatchez, Josh. Monstrosity, Suffering, Subjectivity, and Sympathetic Community in

Frankenstein and The Structure of Torture. Science Fiction Studies, vol. 36, no. 2,

2009, pp. 205216., www.jstor.org/stable/40649956.

Britton, R. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: What Made The Monstor Mounstrous. Journal of

Analytical Psychology, vol. 60, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1-11.

Chivers, Sally. The Horror of Becoming One of Us: Tod Brownings Freaks and Disability.

Screening Disability, 2001.

Clarke, J. All too Human: Edward Scissorhands. Australian Screen Education, vol. 50, 2008,

pp. 93-98.

Codr, D. Arresting Monstrosity: Polio, Frankenstein, and The Horror Film. Publication of the

Modern Language Association of America, vol. 129, no. 2, 2014, pp. 171-187.

Dentith, Simon. Bakhtinian Thought: An Introductory Reader, Taylor & Francis Ltd/Books, 15

Dec. 1994.

Edward Scissorhands. Directed by Tim Burton, Twentieth Century Fox, 1990.

Galvanism. New York Mirror & Ladies' Literary Gazette, 10 April 1824, p. 294-2942.
 Curtis 27

Haraway, Donna. Cyborg Manifesto. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of

Nature, 1991, pp. 291-316.

Houe, Ulf. Frankenstein Without Electricity: Contexualizing Shelley's Novel. Studies in

Romanticism, vol. 55, no. 1, 2016, pp. 95-117.

Juengel, Scott J. Face, Figure, Physiognomics: Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and the Moving

Image. NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction, vol. 33, no. 3, 2000, pp. 353-376.

Lacom, Cindy. "The Time is Sick and out of Joint: Physical Disability in Victorian England.

PMLA, vol.120, no. 2, 2005, pp. 547-552.

Lamb, J. B. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Milton's Monstrous Myth. Ninteenth-Century

Literature, vol. 47, no. 3, 1992, pp. 303-319.

Markotic, Nicole. Disabling the Viewer: Perceptions of Disability in Tod Brownings Freaks.

Screening Disability, 2001.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Dover Thrift Editions, 1994.

Shelley, Percy Bysshe. [On Frankenstein]. In Frankenstein, 185-86.

Smit, C., Enns, Anthony. Screening Disability. University Press of America, 2001.

Wang, Fuson. Romantic Disease Discourse: Disability, Immunity, and Literature. Ninteenth-

Century Contexts, vol. 33, no. 5, 2011, pp. 467-482.