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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

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!