Untitled - California State University, Long Beach

also to bypass God. Through the creation of the monster, Victor opens
up a space outside of normal creator/created and mother/child binaries.
Victor’s identity becomes fluid in the third space of masculine/mortal
creation in the novel and the monstrosity that is its result.
Both Elizabeth and the monster inhabit spaces that are set apart.
In “Facing the Ugly: The Case of Frankenstein,” Denise Gigante argues
for the contrast between Elizabeth and the monster, affirming Elizabeth’s
connection with the ethereal (572). She argues that the ugliness of the
creature places him beneath man, while the angelic beauty of Elizabeth
places her in a space beyond (572). The description of Elizabeth’s features
bears striking resemblance to the later description of the monster and,
according to Gigante, sets up a contrast between the two characters.
Elizabeth’s “brow was clear and gentle” (Frankenstein 43), while the
monster’s “yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries
beneath” (60). His “lustrous black hair” (60) is contrasted with her hair of
“the brightest living gold” (43). While Elizabeth’s lips express “sensibility
and sweetness” (43), the creature’s are expressionless, “straight” and “black”
(60). The most striking comparison, however, lies in the eyes of the two
characters. Elizabeth’s are described as “blue” and “cloudless” (43), while
the monster’s are “dull yellow,” “watery,” and “seemed almost of the same
colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set” (60). In setting
up the physical descriptions of Elizabeth and the creature in contrast to
one another, a connection is formed between the two characters that can
be seen to develop beyond physical appearance. Gigante claims that the
physical descriptions of Elizabeth are the embodiment of her character’s
identity; Victor is not just talking about her “smooth brow” and “blue
and cloudless eyes,” but rather, these physical descriptions are creating her
identity, much in the same way that the creature’s ugliness is creating his
(572). Viewing physical descriptions in light of this argument adds a new
dimension to their relevance in arguing for not only the interchangeability
84 | Wills
of Elizabeth and the monster, but also the unique, fluid identities of each.
Elizabeth is referred to as “of a distinct species” (Frankenstein 43).
She is said to be a “blessing,” a “being heaven-sent,” and “fairer than a
pictured cherub” (43). She is described as “the living spirit of love” and
a “saintly soul” (45). Most strikingly, she is referred to as an “apparition”
(43), a description that defies definition with the human. An apparition
is both unstable and intangible, two qualities that are incompatible with
the material nature of a human. This description of Elizabeth, therefore,
deconstructs the very nature of her bodily humanity. The physical
humanity of the monster is similarly destabilized by his lack of proportion.
Halberstam argues: “In this novel, the monster is not human because he
lacks the proper body—he is too big, too ugly, disproportionate” (35).
Both Elizabeth and the male monster are physically incompatible with
“humanness.” Elizabeth’s ethereal identity is too far beyond the physical,
while the creature’s physical form and ugliness are an excess of physicality.
Halberstam dissects Elizabeth’s difference in physical appearance
as blurring the distinction between human and monster (39). She also
contends that Elizabeth fails to distinguish between man and monster in
the novel, a tendency that forms her as “the new Gothic heroine” (38).
Ultimately, Halberstam argues that Elizabeth becomes a “substitute for
the female monster” and must be sacrificed to the creature as retribution
for Victor’s destruction of the female mate (48). Beyond a Gothic
heroine, Elizabeth is a monster within the novel. Halberstam’s reading of
Elizabeth’s failure to make the distinction between man and monster only
serves to open this possibility. Her difference, her other-worldliness builds
upon this argument, but there is more than monstrous similarity. Not
only does Elizabeth stand in for the female monster in avenging Victor’s
destructive act, she resembles the original monster more closely than
Halberstam asserts. Halberstam argues that the “male monster represents
a sublimity which is missing from the female monster” (50). She sees
Wills | 85