Prompt – Allen Smith’s essay is explicitly concerned with the “terms of contemporaneous racial discourse” (564) that he holds should inform our reading of Victor but which have not factored in some of the novel’s most recent criticism. What have been the dominant terms of those other readings? How does Smith change or add to them to make them part of his “project.” What questions does his project raise for you? Be sure to incorporate specific passages from the essay when responding. What connections might you make between Allen’s work and Angela Davis’s talk?
Readings of Frankensteinhave been concerned with “feminism or the rights of women, female anxieties about authorship…or radical discourse on the Rights of Man” (547). Smith examines “how Frankenstein can be related to contemporary discourses on race, slavery and antislavery” (549). Smith’s section “Monstrousness” is of interest to me, as I still analyze texts through the “Victorian Monsters” lens. I read The Tempest as a senior in high school, and it’s one of my favorite Shakespearean plays. The figure of Caliban stands out, for, in my opinion, he parallels the Creature more than Milton’s Eve, especially when viewed through form alone. This section does raise a couple questions for me. The Creature’s figure is so abhorrent no one can stand to look at him. This is not the case of Caliban. Also, it’s worth investigating why Shelley chooses to have Victor compose the Creature of parts rather than reanimate a whole dead body. Frankensteinis still a work of fiction meant to entertain readers. Reanimating an entire body would have been too simple.
Smith also examines the Creature though the master/slave relationship and denial of sexuality that slaves experienced. I question the Creature’s identity as a slave. Victor wishes he wasn’t the Creature’s master. Smith acknowledges that the “self-assertion of the Creature, his coming to consciousness of the power relations between himself and Frankenstein, makes him the more autonomous of the two” (559). So is Victor slave to the Creature? Overall, I think Smith’s analysis is valid and strengthens the body of Frankenstein criticism. He does important cultural work, as contemporary criticism hasn’t fully accounted for a postcolonial perspective.
These are some great thoughts, Mira! I remember reading The Tempest in high school as well and I agree that Caliban does parallel the Creature of Frankenstein well. However, since the Creature takes a great deal of inspiration from Paradise Lost, how would that contribute to the parallels between Eve and the Creature? I’m not quite sure, but worth thinking about! As to the bodily construction of the Creature, I always thought that Victor used such a variety of parts because he needed organs and appendages that were in a limited stage of decomposition; a whole individual corpse may not have given him that. However, it could also be that the Creature’s composition speaks to some sort representative quality Shelley may have wanted us to think about? I don’t know, but it sounds interesting!