30.12.2013 Views

Untitled - California State University, Long Beach

Untitled - California State University, Long Beach

Untitled - California State University, Long Beach

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

dream sequence, therefore, has several curious ramifications when viewed<br />

in light of Kristeva’s abject. First, Elizabeth’s disappearance from the<br />

scene at the appearance of the corpse argues for her incompatibility with<br />

the reality that death represents. Second, the appearance of the monster<br />

that follows the image of the corpse strengthens the connection of the<br />

monster with death and reality. Since abjection is associated with the<br />

failure to distinguish between subject and object that is prerequisite to<br />

the symbolic order, the appearance of the corpse signifies both Elizabeth’s<br />

and the monster’s potential failures to enter into the symbolic. Though<br />

placed in a gender role as wife to Victor, Elizabeth’s marriage is never<br />

consummated. Her death serves to confirm what the interjection of<br />

the corpse has already done in Victor’s dream: Elizabeth’s identity is<br />

problematized and broken down by the reality of death. The appearance<br />

of the monster following the corpse, however, not only cements the<br />

monster’s place outside of the symbolic order, but also gives precedence<br />

to his identity. The sequential nature of the dream makes Elizabeth and<br />

the monster appear interchangeable to Victor, but the ultimate presence<br />

of the monster at the dream’s ending reveals the creature’s superiority<br />

over fixed identity. Death, as represented by the corpse, morphs into<br />

the monster, and the monster is the only vision which Victor sees while<br />

awake, confirming his unyielding and undifferentiated existence.<br />

Devon Hodges argues that “the monster does not desire to be a<br />

rebel; he wants to be assimilated into society” (160). He also contends<br />

that the creature’s “monstrousness is projected on him” (161). Tackling<br />

Hodges’ first claim, it seems that, while the monster does make an effort<br />

at assimilation, it is entirely on his own terms. Declaring himself to be<br />

Victor’s “fallen angel,” rather than his “Adam,” the creature assigns himself<br />

an identity (93). This identity is not built upon societal structures, but<br />

rather the literary work of Milton. The significance of the creature’s<br />

formation of identity from a literary text lies in the multiplicity of<br />

88 | Wills<br />

meanings that can be derived from the source. Interpretations of Milton’s<br />

Satan and Adam are undefined and continually undergoing reassessment.<br />

Seen in this light, the monster’s identity, therefore, maintains adaptability<br />

in its Miltonian foundation.<br />

In telling Victor about his experiences with fire the monster states:<br />

“How strange, I thought, that the same cause could produce such<br />

opposite effects!” (97). The creature’s demand that Victor make him a<br />

female mate may appear at first a call for integration into the structures of<br />

the symbolic order. However, upon closer examination this request breaks<br />

down into a confirmation of the creature’s resistance to assimilation that<br />

is inherent to his monstrosity. While the call for a female mate seems<br />

to fall into the role of a traditional male figure, the monster’s demands<br />

do not signal assimilation into society. The monster’s mate would be<br />

equally monstrous. Rather than escaping his monstrosity, the creature’s<br />

attempt to normalize himself would only result in affirming the very<br />

thing which he rejects. A mate fashioned unnaturally in the same manner<br />

as the creature would affirm his otherness and inability to integrate into<br />

the order of society. Just as fire produced two different effects depending<br />

upon the creature’s proximity, so the creation of a mate for the monster,<br />

though an objectively “normalizing” process of assimilation, would not<br />

produce the same effect in the monster’s identity as it would in a male<br />

member of society.<br />

Marshall Brown argues that the creature as a monster is defined by his<br />

“lack of a place in the cosmic order,” therefore, “A book about a monster<br />

lacks a stable ground for experience” (196). The successful creation of<br />

the female monster and the possibility of a future in South America<br />

would represent too stable of a development in the creature’s identity.<br />

He would have a “place in the cosmic order” if his plans succeeded, and<br />

the monstrousness that defines his all-encompassing identity would be<br />

nullified. Even if his plans did come to fruition, the very fact of the<br />

Wills | 89

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!