Characters In Frankenstein Commonly To Refer To Each Other As “dear” Or “my Dear” Throughout

Growing up is realising that the monster in Frankenstein was, in fact, the monster all along and those essays you wrote in school about how the Victor caused his downfall because of arrogance which, while true to a degree, are also emblematic of a wider societal problem of how we underplay the actions of serial killers because a sad thing happened to them once, while also perpetuating the idea that some people "had it coming" and, on top of that, forgetting who the real victims are. Because who even is Justine, amiright?

this is what waltonstein is to me

my dealer: got some straight gas 🔥😛 this strain is called “Demian Chapter 6 : Jacob Wrestling” 😳 you’ll be zonked out of your gourd 💯

me: yeah whatever. I don’t feel shit

five minutes later: dude I just woke up in the middle of the night not yet fully aware of what I was doing to burn my painting— the one that I’ve been praying at and masturbating to— yes, the one that looks like the milf that keeps appearing in my dreams and also Demian and also my soul and also Abraxas, that’s right— and awoke to find that I had eaten the ashes

my buddy Pistorius pacing: rad. do you want to sit next to me and stare at this fire for 5 hours straight again

Victor Frankenstein upon reaching university

could you talk about. Autistic victor frankenstein. If you like. (reading 1818 and have brainworms)

it is my genuine opinion victor as a low empathy autistic person is a lot more sensible reading of victor's character then just "selfish dick" because a lot of his other behavior fits it. obviously, a disclaimer that I am fully aware autism did not exist as a disorder in the time the novel was written and mary shelley certainly didnt say "my protagonist will be autistic", but also autistic people always existed, etc. anyways!

special interests: this one's a given. victor's obsessive interest in alchemy in his later teens is the most obvious, and then later on in chemistry in university, but also victor states a lot that since he was very very young he wasfascinated by the workings of the world itself. admittedly this is made more apparent in 1831 with the "it was the secrets of heaven and earth that i desired to learn" and "the world was a secret which I desired to discover" and other lines, but it's also made quite plainly obvious by him talking about how excited he was just to watch a thunderstorm

low empathy: he can't pick up on the extent of the feelings of others, and paired with his own very strong emotions, is why i think we often see victor talk about how he's the world's most miserable human creature. it also leads to him saying some pretty rude things, like that he feels worse then justine who's on death row and telling ernest to stop crying over william so he doesnt get more upset

literalism: "i will be with you on your wedding night", very plainly did not catch what the creature was threatening bc he took his words at face value. he genuinely thought the creature would be with HIM on his wedding night. because that is what he said

volatile emotions: victor on repeated occasions goes from calm to very upset or vice versa very quickly. walton mentions it when talking about victor's tone: Sometimes he commanded his countenance and tones, and related the most horrible incidents with a tranquil voice, suppressing every mark of agitation; then, like a volcano bursting forth, his face would suddenly change to an expression of the wildest rage, as he shrieked out imprecations on his persecutor.

repetitive speech: this comes up multiple times in the book in victor's dialogue, where when he gets agitated or upset he tends to repeat words and phrases. i cannot thing of examples off the top of my head but they are definitely there

repetitive body motions: victor repeatedly gnashes his teeth was agitated or irritated, the creature also does this once as I recall but I believe victor does it about three times

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

elizabeth lavenza:

stood up in front of a corrupt court that condemned her innocent best friend and called them cowards while also defending that friend's innocence, even knowing and saying that it would be considered 'indecent' (volume 1, chapter 7)

goes on an entire rant about how unjust the death penalty is; one could say this is just the author's own beliefs being reflected in her work, which is true! but also doesn't negate that elizabeth was the character chosen to convey this opinion (volume 1, chapter 7)

is described to continuously self sacrifice for the sake of others without complaint, but also shows some resentment for this role she plays when she laments being unable to join victor across europe (volume 1, chapter 2 and volume 3, chapter 1)

is an artist and a writer (volume 1, chapter 1)

is emotional, imaginative, lively, and active (volume 1, chapter 1)

her passive aggressive tone in her letter to victor about justine and how he probably doesnt remember her, the girl who lived with them for five whole years (volume 1, chapter 5)

after justine's wrongful conviction and execution she becomes much more pessimistic and laments about the unfairness of the world and that "men appear to [her] as monsters thirsting for each others blood" (volume 2, chapter 1)

yet because the 1831 revision of the novel removed or changed so much of this people -- movie writers, musical writers, fans, etc! -- act like she is and always has been a nothing character, instead of thinking critically about why mary shelley would revise her novel with her very radical for the time she lived in opinions during a time of financial stress.

happy end of frankenstein day 🪦

(for your desire to frankenyap-) what is your favorite Henry Clerval Moment™ in the novel?

henry clerval!!!!! my one true love

my favorite moment of his that i cannot believe people don't talk about is him diverting the subject when theyre talking to waldman abt victor's "progress in the sciences." he is so ridiculously thoughtful it's absolutely adorable. ive written out how i think that particular conversation went for a writing exercise and i fell so in love w henry. victor i get it so divinely wrought and beaming with beauty fr

this um. turned into a super long analysis somehow 😭 under the cut

i have a lot more to say about my least favorite henry moment though; i know we all clown on the 1831 turning henry into a colonizer thing, and i absolutely love to make fun of it as well because is was A Choice, but henry's character assassination in the 1831 edition fills me with genuine and outstanding rage. to what extent he just serves as a love letter to percy shelley (i think the idea has merit that clerval was based on percy but i also think it kinda follows the general trend of people attributing mary's genius and independent work to percy at every conceivable opportunity) (if anything i'd argue walton is more like percy) can be debated, but it is so infuriating to me how henry goes from a character that seems to have been written with genuine affection and enthusiasm, hence why he's so charming, to being a glorified plot device in the 1831 edition. having henry go from a sensual capital r Romantic whose only goals are to worship nature and discover all the beautiful corners of the earth, learning eastern languages and going to england just for the sake of living out a worldly life, to some businessman whose actions are spurred on by some manly commitment to "enterprise" is so annoying to me. i really really do hate what she did to him in the 1831 edition but i get why. this is a trend with the 1831 edition: making the male characters' more sensitive and emotionally demonstrative behaviors less obvious and making the female characters' more headstrong personalities milder show how mary had to nuke the subtleties of the novel to make it more palatable and interpretable for victorian society. ofc she was older when she wrote the 1831 edition so much of it could've been her own shifting perspective but i maintain that 1831 is decidedly much more conservative and seems to tread on eggshells on the subjects mary used to be so bold discussing in frankenstein. i don't think that one edition is better than the other, there are things i like and disliked about both, but i do think you need to know the differences between the two and their exigence to get a holistic understanding of the novel.

jesus christ i lost the plot. anyway henry come home the husband and kids miss you <3

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

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

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

Something very cool I realized about Elizabeth Lavenza-Frankenstein

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

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

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