The Creature Lives: Revolutionary Births and the Frankenpheme in Popular Culture
Introduction: A Novel That Refuses to Die
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus was published in 1818, when its author was just twenty years old. It was born in a time of revolution—the French Revolution had shaken Europe, the Industrial Revolution was transforming labor and society, and radical thinkers like William Godwin and Thomas Paine were challenging the foundations of monarchy, religion, and property. Shelley's novel emerged from this ferment, and it carries within it the anxieties, hopes, and contradictions of its age.
Two hundred years later, Frankenstein is everywhere. The Creature's face—green-skinned, bolt-necked, misunderstood—is one of the most recognizable images in popular culture. The name "Frankenstein" has become a shorthand for any technological hubris, from genetically modified foods to artificial intelligence. Timothy Morton calls these cultural fragments "Frankenphemes"—elements derived from Shelley's novel that circulate across media, detached from their original context, adapted to new anxieties (Morton 4).
This blog explores two dimensions of Shelley's enduring novel. First, it examines the novel's "revolutionary births"—how the Creature embodies class struggle, racial anxiety, and scientific hubris. Second, it traces the "Frankenpheme" through popular culture, asking whether the novel's commodification has obscured its revolutionary essence or whether its adaptability proves its oppositional power.
Part 1: Revolutionary Births
1. The Creature as Proletarian
Mary Shelley lived in a time of great social and political turmoil. Her father, William Godwin, was a radical philosopher who argued for the abolition of government and property. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, had written A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), one of the founding texts of feminism. Shelley herself was steeped in radical politics. When she wrote Frankenstein, she was responding to a world in which the old hierarchies were being challenged—and in which the fear of revolution was palpable.
The Creature is a powerful figure of the oppressed. He is created by Victor Frankenstein, abandoned at birth, and rejected by every human he encounters. He is intelligent, sensitive, and eloquent—but his appearance condemns him to isolation. He is, in effect, a proletarian: a being whose labor creates value (he learns language, he gathers firewood, he observes the De Lacey family) but who is denied the rights and recognition that his humanity should afford him.
"I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind?"
— The Creature, Frankenstein (Shelley 104)This line is the Creature's revolutionary manifesto. It is not that he is inherently evil. It is that society has made him evil by denying him love, community, and justice. Shelley is making a radical argument: crime is the product of oppression, not of innate depravity. This is the same argument that radicals like Godwin and Paine were making about the poor in England—that poverty and crime are not moral failings but social failures.
The Creature's paradoxical nature—simultaneously an innocent and a vengeful force—reflects the anxieties of Shelley's class. The ruling classes feared revolution, but they also recognized that the suffering masses had legitimate grievances. The Creature embodies both sides of this anxiety. He is sympathetic because he suffers. He is terrifying because he seeks revenge. Shelley refuses to resolve this contradiction. She asks us to hold both truths at once.
Modern Parallel: The Creature's condition anticipates the experience of the modern working class. Workers create wealth but are denied the full benefits of their labor. They are told that their poverty is their own fault. And when they resist—through strikes, protests, or political movements—they are portrayed as dangerous and ungrateful. The Creature is not just a monster. He is a mirror.
2. A Race of Devils
The Creature's appearance is never described in detail, but we know that he is "yellow-skinned," with "watery eyes," "dun-white sockets," and "straight black lips" (Shelley 43). These features have led many critics to read the Creature as a racialized figure—a representation of the "Other" that Europe feared and colonized.
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's essay "Three Women's Texts and a Critique of Imperialism" (1985) argues that Frankenstein is deeply implicated in the logic of empire. The Creature's story is framed by Robert Walton's Arctic expedition—a mission of exploration and conquest. Victor's creation of the Creature mirrors the colonial project: the desire to create, control, and civilize a being that is then rejected and destroyed (Spivak 243–61).
Victor Frankenstein is a colonial subject in another sense. He is a man of science who travels to distant lands, appropriates knowledge, and creates a being he cannot control. When the Creature demands a companion, Victor refuses—because he fears "a race of devils" who would "make the very existence of the species of man a condition precarious and full of terror" (Shelley 145). This is the language of colonial anxiety: the fear that the colonized will multiply, rise up, and destroy the colonizer.
The novel also engages with the concept of "race" in a more literal sense. The Creature is described as a "filthy mass" and a "thing such as even Dante could not have conceived" (Shelley 44). He is not human—or rather, he is human but not recognized as such. This is the condition of the racialized subject under colonialism: to be human but treated as less than human.
Modern Relevance: The Creature's experience mirrors the experience of racial and ethnic minorities today. They are judged by their appearance, excluded from full participation in society, and feared as threats. The Black Lives Matter movement, the refugee crisis, and the rise of anti-immigrant rhetoric all testify to the persistence of these anxieties. Shelley's novel asks us to ask: who gets to be human, and who decides?
3. From Natural Philosophy to Cyborg
In the age of genetic engineering, cloning, and artificial intelligence, Frankenstein is more relevant than ever. Victor Frankenstein is a "natural philosopher"—the eighteenth-century term for a scientist—who seeks to unlock the secrets of life. He is driven by ambition, curiosity, and a desire for glory. He does not consider the consequences of his actions until it is too late.
"I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body... The different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart."
(Shelley 42–43)
This passage is a warning about the danger of unchecked scientific ambition. Victor creates life, but he cannot care for it. He is the absent father, the irresponsible creator. His sin is not that he sought to create—it is that he failed to take responsibility for what he created.
Modern Parallels:
- CRISPR and gene editing: In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced the birth of twin girls whose genes had been edited to make them resistant to HIV. The scientific community condemned his actions as unethical and premature. The twins are, in a sense, the first "Frankenstein" babies—created by technology, but with unknown consequences.
- Artificial intelligence: AI systems like GPT-4 and autonomous weapons raise questions about control and responsibility. Who is accountable when an AI makes a harmful decision? The creator? The user? The AI itself?
- Cloning and biotechnology: Dolly the sheep (1996) was the first mammal cloned from an adult cell. Since then, cloning has become more sophisticated, raising the possibility of human cloning. Frankenstein asks us to consider whether we should do something simply because we can.
The Lesson: Shelley's novel is not a rejection of science. It is a demand for ethical responsibility. Victor's tragedy is not that he created life—it is that he abandoned it. The modern scientist, like Victor, must ask: what are the consequences of my creation, and am I prepared to bear them?
Part 2: The Frankenpheme in Popular Culture
1. First Film Adaptation and Popular Retellings
The first cinematic adaptation of Frankenstein was a 1910 silent film produced by Thomas Edison's studio. But the most influential adaptation was James Whale's Frankenstein (1931), starring Boris Karloff as the Creature. Whale's film gave us the iconic image of the Creature: flat head, bolts in the neck, heavy boots. It also simplified Shelley's novel, reducing the Creature's eloquence and moral complexity.
Since then, Frankenstein has been retold countless times:
Whale's sequel introduced a female Creature, adding a layer of gender politics to the story.
Mel Brooks's parody treated the material with affectionate humor, showing that the story had become so familiar that it could be mocked.
Ridley Scott's film transposes the Frankenstein theme to a future of replicants—artificial beings who seek their creator and demand a life of their own.
Alex Garland's film updates the Frankenstein story for the age of AI, with a young programmer who creates a female android and loses control of his creation.
Why does Frankenstein endure? Because its themes are universal and adaptable. Every generation has its own anxieties about technology, otherness, and creation. The novel provides a template for exploring those anxieties. The Frankenpheme—the cultural fragment of the Creature—is endlessly reproducible because it names something that never stops being relevant: the fear of what we have made.
How Adaptations Transform the Message:
Each adaptation reshapes the novel for its own time. Whale's Frankenstein reflects the anxieties of the Great Depression—the fear of mob violence, the plight of the misunderstood outsider. Blade Runner reflects the anxieties of the 1980s—the fear of corporate control, the blurring of human and machine. Ex Machina reflects the anxieties of the 2010s—the fear of surveillance, the ethics of AI, the gendered dynamics of creation.
Some adaptations retain the novel's critique of scientific ambition. Others focus on the Creature's humanity. Still others turn the story into pure horror. The Frankenpheme is flexible enough to accommodate all these readings.
2. Film and Media Reflection
The worksheet asks us to watch clips or films inspired by Frankenstein and reflect on how they interpret the novel's themes. I watched two films for this activity: James Whale's The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) and Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (1982).
The Bride of Frankenstein is particularly interesting because it introduces a female Creature—a being created not for her own sake but as a companion for the male Creature. She is given life, but she rejects him, and she is destroyed by the same scientific hubris that created her. The film raises questions about gender and creation that Shelley's novel only hints at. Who has the right to create life? Who has the right to destroy it? And what happens when the created being refuses the role assigned to it?
Blade Runner transposes the Frankenstein story to a future Los Angeles, where replicants—bioengineered beings—are used as slave labor. When they escape and seek their creator, they are hunted down by a blade runner. The film asks: what makes us human? Is it our biology, or our capacity for empathy, memory, and love? The replicants are more human than the humans who hunt them. This is the same insight that Shelley offers: the Creature is more human than Victor.
Hindi Adaptations: While I was not able to find a direct Hindi adaptation of Frankenstein, the theme of the created being who turns against its creator appears in Indian cinema. For example, Robot (2010) and its sequel 2.0 (2018) explore the relationship between humans and artificial intelligence, raising questions about control, responsibility, and the ethics of creation. These films show that the Frankenstein myth is not confined to Western culture—it is a global phenomenon.
Comparison Table: Shelley vs. Modern Adaptations
| Thematic Element | Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) | Ex Machina (2014) |
|---|---|---|
| The Creator | Victor Frankenstein: Driven by ego, scientific glory, and biological curiosity. | Nathan Bateman: Driven by corporate dominance, data harvesting, and playing God. |
| The Creation | The Creature: Biological, hideous, male, deeply emotional and eloquent. | Ava: Artificial, beautiful, female-presenting, manipulative and calculating. |
| The Original Sin | Abandonment: Victor flees in disgust immediately after the Creature awakens. | Confinement: Nathan builds Ava solely to be tested and imprisoned in a glass box. |
Suggested Activity: The Creature's Literary Education
The worksheet asks us to read selected passages from Frankenstein and discuss how the Creature's literary education shapes his worldview. This is one of the most important themes in the novel.
The Creature learns to read by observing the De Lacey family. He reads Paradise Lost, Plutarch's Lives, and The Sorrows of Werter. These books shape his understanding of himself and the world:
- Paradise Lost teaches him about creation, rebellion, and alienation. He identifies with both Adam (the created being) and Satan (the rebel). "I am thy creature," he says to Victor, "I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel" (Shelley 87).
- Plutarch's Lives teaches him about virtue, heroism, and public life. He learns that humans can be noble and that society can be just—but he also learns that he is excluded from that society.
- The Sorrows of Werter teaches him about love, longing, and despair. He learns that human emotions are complex and that loneliness is a form of death.
The Creature's education empowers and alienates him simultaneously. It gives him language to articulate his suffering, but it also makes him aware of everything he is denied. He learns what it means to be human, but he is not allowed to be human. This is the tragedy of the marginalized: to know what you are missing, and to be unable to attain it.
Personal Reflection: What Frankenstein Means to Me
Reading Frankenstein in the context of Cultural Studies has changed how I understand the novel. I used to see it as a horror story about a monster. Now I see it as a political allegory about power, responsibility, and exclusion.
The Creature is not a monster. He is a mirror. He reflects back to us everything we fear about the Other—the poor, the racialized, the disabled, the artificial. He asks us to consider what we owe to those we create and then abandon. He asks us to consider what happens when we treat human beings as things.
In a world of AI, genetic engineering, and climate change, these questions are more urgent than ever. Frankenstein is not just a novel about the past. It is a prophecy about the future. And like all prophecies, it demands a response.
Conclusion: The Creature Lives
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was born in revolution, and it has never stopped being revolutionary. It critiques class oppression, racial exclusion, and scientific hubris. It gives voice to the marginalized and demands accountability from the powerful. And through the Frankenpheme—the endless circulation of its images, ideas, and anxieties—it continues to speak to every generation.
The Creature lives. He lives in every film, every parody, every political speech that invokes the name "Frankenstein." He lives in every debate about AI, cloning, and genetic engineering. He lives in every protest against injustice. He is not a monster. He is a question. And the question is: what will we do with what we have made?
Works Cited
Guerin, Wilfred L., et al. "From Paradise Lost to Frank-N-Furter: The Creature Lives!" A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature, 5th ed., Indian ed., Oxford UP, 2007, pp. 305–11.
Levine, George, and U. C. Knoepflmacher, editors. The Endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley's Novel. U of California P, 1979.
Morton, Timothy. Routledge Literary Sourcebook on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Routledge, 2002.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus. 1818. Project Gutenberg, 1993, www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/84.
Smith, Johanna M. "'Cooped Up' with 'Sad Trash': Domesticity and the Sciences in Frankenstein." Frankenstein: Complete, Authoritative Text with Biographical, Historical, and Cultural Contexts, edited by Johanna M. Smith, Bedford Books, 2000, pp. 227–40.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. "Three Women's Texts and a Critique of Imperialism." Critical Inquiry, vol. 12, no. 1, 1985, pp. 243–61.
No comments:
Post a Comment